The Case of the Baffled Bunny

I was at my neighborhood Easter egg hunt on an uncommonly hot spring day. I liked watching the kids snoop around the trees and bushes, especially when their eyes filled with bloodthirsty greed as they knocked down 4 year olds just to grab plastic yellow eggs with nickels inside.

It was a good scene all around my neighbor’s backyard, but something about it reminded me of a Weight Watchers meeting at a pogo stick factory—there was no hopping. The man I saw earlier in the

Easter bunny suit was M.I.A., which meant he had to explain himself to A.C.E.

I spotted the bum over by the garage, hitting the vinyl siding with his giant furry bunny paws. I walked over and tapped his shoulder.

“What your problem, pal? Having a bad hare day? The kiddies want to see you hopping, so get hopping.” I didn’t like strong-arming mythical holiday icons. I learned that lesson the hard way after yelling at kung fu Santa for double-parking his Lexus in front of Starbucks last December.

“Leave me alone, Ace.”

The voice sounded familiar. It was the strong, steady voice of someone with heightened mental potency. It was the voice of an insurance man.

“Chuck, is that you? What the heck are you doing inside the bunny suit?”

“Sweating my eggs off. It’s hotter than a snake’s butt in a wagon rut in this thing.”

“Then what are you doing over here by the garage?”

“Cursing over an insurance dilemma.”

I knew insurance dilemmas better than Kevin Federline knew coattail riding.

“Tell me about it, bunny man.”

“A contractor client of mine was hauling an oil tank on his flatbed trailer to a disposal site. The tank leaked a small amount of oil onto the road and a motorcycle slid on it, injuring the driver. The carrier

denied the loss based on the pollution exclusion on the business auto policy, citing exclusion B item 11. If the leaked liquid was honey or ice cream, or even water for that matter, the claim would have been paid. They responded that, ‘Since there is no case law to refute the intent of this exclusion, we must rely on the wording of the policy.’ It’s hard to believe that this type of claim has never come up before. It’s pointless, Ace!”

“There’s no reason to get hopping mad over this one. The company is stretching the intent of the pollution exclusion, which makes me wonder if their minds aren’t polluted with massive amounts of stupidity.”

How will Ace clean this one up? For help solving this mystery and to check your solution against Ace’s, click here.

Jonathan Hermann (hermannism@gmail.com) is an IA contributing editor.