Lately there have been a few decisions addressing whether hog manure qualifies as a pollutant under the pollution exclusion. This makes for an interesting debate – just not one to have at the dinner table. Riddle me this: Is bat guano a pollutant? This has also been answered by a few courts in recent years. The bat guano question had been right up there with many of the other great unsolved mysteries of the universe: How did the pyramids get built? What’s the meaning behind Stonehenge? How did those Easter Island fellows get there?

One of the reasons why the pollution exclusion is such an interesting issue, and the subject of so much commentary, is that the substances under consideration are so varied and sometimes quirky. Over the past three decades or so it seems that courts have addressed whether just about anything and everything is a pollutant for purposes of the exclusion. I’ve always known that to be the case from an anecdotal standpoint. But recently I saw actual evidence of it when I had the occasion to refer to Claudia Catalano’s A.L.R. article – which is more accurately described as a phonebook – on the pollution exclusion. Her piece -- “What Constitutes ‘Pollutant,’ ‘Contaminant,’ ‘Irritant,’ or ‘Waste’ Within Meaning of Absolute or Total Pollution Exclusion in Liability Insurance Policy” – contains an index of substances that have been presented to courts for their answer to this question. The index lists in the range of 260 entries.

Obviously that’s a lot of substances that have been the subject of pollution exclusion litigation. Indeed, so many in fact that upon closer review of the index I realized that every letter of the alphabet is represented -- except J. There is ammonia, benzene, carbon monoxide, dust, ethylene dibromide, fly ash, gasoline, hydrochloric acid, insecticides, kerosene, lead, manganese fumes, noise, odors, perc, quicklime, rubber, silica, toluene, underground storage tanks, vinyl chloride, wood ash, xylene, yellow jackets and zinc. [… next time won’t you sing with me.]

[OK, the yellow jackets case in fact involved pesticides to exterminate them. But when you are in the Ys sometimes you need to be creative.]

Surely there is a pollution exclusion case out there involving a substance that starts with the letter J? Someone find it and send it to Claudia Catalano. Not that her A.L.R. piece isn’t already complete, but it seems a pity that the index is just one short of the entire alphabet.