A catastrophic pool-heater carbonmonoxide incident that killed a mother and her two sons in June 2025 has produced two major court battles: a multi-defendant wrongful-death lawsuit in state court, and a federal insurance-coverage dispute focused on whether a pollution exclusion allows an insurer to walk away from defending one of the accused contractors.
The litigation began after Amy Manning Kirk, 52, and her sons William, 22, and John, 17, were discovered dead in their Nacogdoches, Texas, home during a June welfare check. Local authorities at the time announced that carbon monoxide poisoning was being considered as a possible cause.
On August 14, 2025, husband and father Brett Kirk filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in Harris County, alleging that the deaths resulted from an improperly installed and improperly configured pool heater. According to the complaint, the newly installed Hayward Universal HC-400DF heater had been set up for natural gas but was in fact supplied with propane and “was located too close to the structure in violation of the safety code.”
The state petition alleges the heater, “configured for natural gas but burning propane, produced extreme amounts of carbon monoxide that vented directly into the Kirk house,” and that “once this deadly, odorless gas entered the home, it was circulated throughout the home while the Kirk family slept. Brett Kirk’s wife and two kids were killed in their sleep.”
Kirk is seeking more than $50 million in damages. The suit names five defendants:
• Hayward Holdings (heater manufacturer).
• JB Crawford Construction.
• East Texas Home Inspection Services.
• Perry Propane and Appliances, LLC.
• Duran Pools & Spas, Inc. With the wrongful-death case underway, FCCI Insurance Company — the insurer for Duran Pools & Spas — filed a declaratory-judgment action on August 28, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. FCCI is asking a federal judge to rule that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify Duran in the state suit.
FCCI argues its commercial general liability policy and its umbrella policy contain “Total Pollution Exclusions” that bar coverage because the deaths allegedly resulted from the release of carbon monoxide. According to FCCI, carbon monoxide is a “pollutant” under its policies, and therefore the claims fall entirely outside the scope of coverage.
The insurer relies heavily on the state-court allegations themselves. FCCI quotes the underlying petition describing how “the Hayward pool heater defectively and inexplicably turned on,” producing “extreme amounts of carbon monoxide that vented directly into the Kirk house.” Because the injuries “arise out of” the escape of a pollutant, FCCI argues it has “no duty to defend or indemnify Duran Pools & Spas, Inc. under either the Primary Policy or Umbrella Policy.”
On October 2, both Duran Pools and Brett Kirk filed answers contesting FCCI’s attempt to disclaim coverage.
Duran argues FCCI “owes Duran a complete and full defense and indemnity for the underlying lawsuit” and asks the court to dismiss the insurer’s declaratory-judgment action. The company also claims FCCI’s complaint fails to state a claim and that the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Kirks’ answer begins with a general denial and contends the insurer is seeking an improper advisory opinion while the state-court facts remain unresolved. They argue the issues FCCI raises “are not ripe for declaratory relief,” and emphasize that “the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and arises whenever the factual allegations in the underlying pleading potentially implicate coverage.” They also argue that any ambiguity in the policies must be interpreted “to provide coverage rather than deny it.”
The central question in the federal lawsuit is whether carbon monoxide qualifies as a “pollutant” under FCCI’s policies — and whether that classification is clear enough to eliminate the insurer’s duty to defend Duran Pools while the underlying wrongful-death suit proceeds.
The answer will determine whether FCCI must begin paying for Duran’s defense immediately, whether the insurer might eventually have to cover any judgment, and how Texas courts will treat pollution exclusions in carbon-monoxide cases going forward.
Both the wrongful-death case in Harris County and the federal coverage dispute remain active. No ruling has been issued in federal court, and the parties appear to be preparing for a fight over the scope and meaning of the pollution exclusion — an argument that could shape similar insurance battles across the state.
