Decorative Art Fountain Not Consumable for Purposes of Exception to Fungi or Bacteria Exclusion
Insurance Coverage Alert
Insights for Insurers Alert | 1 min read
Oct 9, 2013
Recently, in Heinecke v. Aurora Healthcare Inc., the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that a decorative art fountain was not “a good or product for consumption” within the meaning of a “consumption exception” contained in an insurance policy's Fungi or Bacteria exclusion. The Heinecke case arose from a Legionnaire’s disease outbreak caused by exposure to Legionnella bacteria found in water contained in a decorative art fountain constructed by the insured and located in the lobby of Aurora St. Luke's South Shore Hospital. Specifically, the court found that defining a decorative art fountain as “a good or product intended for consumption” did not comport with the parties’ objectively reasonable expectations.
In its decision, the court of appeals reiterated that Wisconsin courts must interpret the terms of an insurance policy from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the insured, and should not adopt any grammatically plausible interpretation of a term. In other words, dictionary definitions that do not comport with the insured’s reasonable expectation should be rejected as unreasonable. Applying this standard, the court found that the phrase “a good or product intended for consumption” clearly did not refer to the observation and enjoyment of art as argued by the plaintiff. Rather, a reasonable insured would understand the term to refer to products or goods meant to be eaten, drank, or otherwise used up . The court also found that the insured’s proffered definition would lead to an absurd result given the context of the surrounding policy language. The court noted that the Fungi or Bacteria exclusion was developed to exclude coverage for mold present in buildings with construction defects, and that the insured had been sued for construction defects. Further, application of the insured’s proffered definition would result in coverage for mold appearing on decorative walls or molding, a result directly adverse to the purpose of the Fungi or Bacteria exclusion.
Featured Insights

Press Release
Aug 7, 2026
Daniel McGrath Re-Elected Senior Director of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel

Insights for Insurers Alert
Aug 7, 2026
California Supreme Court Clarifies Pleading Standards for Excess Policy Claims

Press Release
Aug 6, 2026
Charles Townsend Named a Best Mentor Finalist in the 2026 ALM Texas Legal Awards

Webinar
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Aug 5, 2026
2026 AI Compliance: Upcoming Laws Every Organization Needs to Know

Press Release
July 21, 2026 | Updated on August 4, 2026
Three Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the 2026 National Black Lawyers’ Top 40 Under 40 List

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

