Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): building did not “constitute the type of environmental pollution contemplated by the clause”), with Kim, 332 Ill. App. 3d at 775 (determining that the insured’s “discharge of a hazardous material into the soil [met] the definition of traditional environmental pollution” (emphasis added)). Other cases dealing with the absolute pollution exclusion would seem to support this distinction. See Economy Preferred Insurance Co. v. Grandadam, 275 Ill. App. 3d 866, 870-71, 656 N.E.2d 787 (1995) (finding, as the first Illinois court to construe an absolute pollution exclusion, that the exclusion barred coverage when the minor son of the insured spilled mercury in the home of a neighbor); Housing Authority Risk Retention Group, Inc. v. Chicago Housing Authority, 378 F.3d 596, 606 (7th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>); Pipefitters, 976 F.2d at 1044 (finding that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection (B) holding that the absolute pollution exclusion barred coverage for injuries resulting from hazardous materials that were introduced released and allowed to remain in the environment in altgeld gardens by the surrounding industrial plants abandoned factories toxic waste dumps landfills and a metropolitan sanitary district plant citation and by pcbs and pahs that cha introduced released and allowed to remain in the environment of altgeld gardens (C) holding that courts must examine the facts surrounding the publication the context in which the statements were made and the nature of the language used (D) recognizing the increased breadth of the definition of property damage introduced in the more recent form of policy (E) holding that to determine whether a statement was voluntary the court must consider the totality of all the surrounding circumstances  both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation and decide  whether a defendants will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession
Output (English): holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection