I looked, but I don't see anything like that. The exclusions for smoke and water damage do not apply to "sudden and accidental" losses but the pollution one does. And it does not limit it to contamination of the environment.
My Erie policy was emailed to me, but here is a State Farm policy (not the one I quoted above) that has a similar exclusion:
That said, from googling I gather that there has been a lot of litigation over what counts as a "pollutant," including specifically whether gasoline counts. So I don't think that the presence of this clause means that an insurance company will always try to exclude any losses involving gasoline. I just think maybe they would have an argument if they wanted to.
"This (pollution) exclusion does not apply to bodily injury or property damage:
...
(3) caused by common household chemicals
used to maintain the residence premises."
Additionally, and perhaps even more importantly, this exclusion is in the "Personal Liability" section of the policy. The coverage/exclusions for the "Dwelling" are on pages 8-12.
Ah, interesting, I didn't read that to include gasoline but I see how one could argue that it does. The Erie policy has no such language.
In any case, thanks for the responses. My gut reaction is to agree with you that a lot of these "homeowners insurance will deny your claim if you do X!" warnings are based on third-hand knowledge or misinformation. I don't have any special knowledge though. (Do you?)
Edit: oops, you're right of course that I was reading the wrong part of the State Farm document! I swear I am not reading the Erie one so carelessly though.
My Erie policy was emailed to me, but here is a State Farm policy (not the one I quoted above) that has a similar exclusion:
http://www.opic.texas.gov/images/TDI_Approved_Policy_Forms/S...
That said, from googling I gather that there has been a lot of litigation over what counts as a "pollutant," including specifically whether gasoline counts. So I don't think that the presence of this clause means that an insurance company will always try to exclude any losses involving gasoline. I just think maybe they would have an argument if they wanted to.