Q. I heard recently of an insurance case where a man’s home was invaded by a skunk which proceeded to fumigate the place. The homeowner policy seemed to cover the situation but the insurance company balked (not surprisingly). Don’t these policies cover damage caused by animals? A. Ancient kid’s pun: “What’s black and white and red all over?” Answer: “A skunk with diaper rash.” It seems that our little woodsy friend wears out his people-welcome every time he leaves his den. A Wrentham judge with a keen nose for insurance law took on the case which you heard about. The facts, in a very real “scents”, were far from black and white. Here’s what happened.

Mr. Rivers (name changed to protect the contaminee) noticed a putrid odor emanating from his family room. The smell was overpowering. No question about it – it had to be a skunk. But where was it? It seems that the little furry critter had managed to invade the subfloor underneath the family room floor and couldn’t get back out. Whether in frustration or retaliation, (the skunk left no suicide note) the intruder breathed its last, then, in true skunk-like fashion, exuded its entire perfume sacs between the floor joists.

Deconstruction was next. The floors had to be ripped apart, fumigation had to be done repeatedly, and new construction was commenced. When the sawdust cleared, Mr. Rivers was looking down the barrel of an $8,000 repair bill. Then the fun began: Enter the friendly insurance man.

It seems that Mr. Rivers had an exclusion in his homeowner policy for damage caused by “vermin”. Is a skunk “vermin?” How insulting to the owner of a de-scented skunk! How inhumane to skunks residing at a petting zoo! The judge wisely decided that the word “vermin” was a bit too ambiguous and might not include the striped intruder. In fact, the judge even opined that the word “vermin” has, in some contexts, referred to two-legged creatures of low moral repute. (Fuel for another great lawyer joke, perhaps?)

The real “stinker” in this case turned out to be the word “contaminant”. Without question, the putrid urine-like spray from this unwelcome guest was a contaminant. There was no getting around it. The policy was clear in this regard: No coverage for damage caused by contamination caused by foreign substances. Did it matter that the skunk was not a foreigner? Apparently not, according to the judge’s ruling.

Result? The skunk, arguably, may not have been a vermin, but its spray was a not-so-clear contaminant. No coverage, in other words, for the $8,000 spray job at Chez Rivers. This hapless homeowner even had to pay interment expenses for his unwelcome furry guest. The skunk’s wife could not be reached for comment.

Silly Statute Of The Week – To adopt someone in Oklahoma you must be at least ten years older than the one being adopted.

The author, a practicing attorney in Brockton, will answer questions of general reader interest. Write to him at 71 Legion Pkwy., Brockton, MA 02301.