Opinion ID: 1734320
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ducote's Application to this Case

Text: As it would not be necessary to reexamine the holding in Ducote if that case did not control the one before us, we must first address the argument by St. Bernard Parish that Ducote is distinguishable. Both in brief and oral argument, the Parish argued that Ducote did not control the present matter because in Ducote an insured's own employee caused the pollution, whereas in this case a third party (the refinery) caused the pollution. We do not agree. The Ducote court found that pollution exclusions were unambiguous and excluded coverage for injury which would not have occurred in whole or in part but for the [dispersal] of pollutants at any time. Ducote, 98-0942 at 2, 4, 730 So.2d at 432, 437. Therefore, if Ducote is correct, it is irrelevant who precipitates the alleged pollution event. Coverage for any injuries that would not have occurred but for the [dispersal] of pollutants would be excluded. Finding that Ducote would be dispositive in this case, we turn now to the validity of that ruling and whether that decision should be overruled at this time. We therefore begin with an analysis of the origin of the pollution exclusion itself.