BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Exploding vape damages not covered by insurance: Court


Excess and surplus lines insurer Scottsdale Insurance Co. does not have to defend a suit brought against a vape store by a customer who suffered severe burns after e-cigarette batteries exploded in his pocket, a federal court ruled Tuesday.

According to court documents in Scottsdale Insurance Co. v Aqueous Vapor LLC, Adam Williams, Mr. Williams bought e-cigarette batteries from an Aqueous Vapor store in Independence, Missouri, and shortly after he installed them when he returned home, they exploded in his pocket. Mr. Williams suffered second- and third-degree burns, which required extensive medical care, including skin grafts, court documents say.

Mr. Williams sued Aqueous Vapor and the company sought coverage under its commercial insurance policy with Scottsdale.

The Scottsdale, Arizona-based insurer denied coverage, citing the products-completed operations hazard exclusion in the policy, among other arguments.

Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri Western Division granted Scottsdale’s motion to dismiss the case.

“The exclusion precludes coverage for bodily injury occurring away from the premises owned or rented by Aqueous Vapor and arising out of their product or work,” the judge ruled.


Read Next

  • Scottsdale Insurance not liable under D&O policy

    Scottsdale Insurance Co. is not obligated to provide coverage to current and former officers of an electronics firm under exclusions in its directors and officers liability policy, says a federal appeals court, in upholding a lower court ruling.