Opinion ID: 887364
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pollution Exclusion and its Sudden and Accidental Exception

Text: ¶ 23 A separate pollution exclusion in the CGL policy restricts the otherwise broad sweep of occurrence. It provides that the policy does not apply to property damages arising out of the disposal of hazardous wastes into or upon the land. The pollution exclusion clause's general thrust disavows any obligations by Travelers to provide coverage in cases such as this where Ribi's disposal of hazardous wastes caused the damages. The pollution exclusion would proscribe Travelers's coverage if we stopped here because Ribi's hazardous wastes undoubtedly contaminated neighboring soil and groundwater. ¶ 24 In this case, however, the CGL policy's pollution exclusion contains an important exception. This exception states that the exclusion does not apply if the disposal is sudden and accidental. In other words, the pollution exclusion eliminates claims from coverage unless the claim arises from the disposal of hazardous wastes deemed to be sudden and accidental. Travelers contends that sudden includes a temporal element within the CGL policy's context that must be applied to Ribi's disposal of hazardous wastes. ¶ 25 In Sokolowski v. American West Ins. Co., 1999 MT 93, 294 Mont. 210, 980 P.2d 1043, we discussed the meaning of a similar sudden and accidental provision in a homeowner's policy. There we concluded that the gradual accumulation of soot and smoke on the walls, ceiling and floor of the insured's home caused by prolonged burning of candles during the holiday season did not constitute a sudden release of pollutants. Sokolowski, ¶ 17. We focused on the fact that the unambiguous language of the sudden and accidental exception in a pollution exclusion clause in a homeowner's policy contains a temporal element. Sokolowski, ¶ 15. We noted that the very use of the two words sudden and accidental reveals a clear intent to define them to state two separate requirements. Sokolowski, ¶ 15. In other words, the word sudden, even if it includes the concept of unexpectedness, also encompasses a temporal element, because the word accidental already expresses unexpectedness. Sokolowski, ¶ 15. ¶ 26 Thus, we concluded that in order for the word sudden to have significant purpose, and not to be surplusage when used generally in conjunction with the word accidental, it must have a temporal aspect to its meaning, and not merely a sense of something unexpected. Sokolowski, ¶ 15. Further, recognizing our duty to interpret the contract as a whole, the failure to show one condition, i.e., suddenness, negates the exception to the pollution exclusion resulting in no coverage under the insurance policy. Sokolowski, ¶ 15 (citing § 28-3-202, MCA). We now extend Sokolowski's holding to the standard pollution exclusion in a CGL policy. ¶ 27 Ribi suggests that we should consider the drafting history of the sudden and accidental pollution exclusion to determine its meaning. Extrinsic evidence may be used as an aid in interpreting contract provisions, however, only when the language contained therein is ambiguous. Section 28-2-905, MCA. We have declared identical policy language in Sokolowski to be unambiguous, and, therefore, we deem it unnecessary to consider Ribi's arguments pertaining to the drafting history of the CGL policy's pollution exclusion clause. Sokolowski, ¶ 15.