Opinion ID: 1312473
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Into or upon land, the atmosphere, or any watercourse or body of water.

Text: The Regents further argue that asbestos fibers are not released into the atmosphere but only into the air inside the buildings, and therefore the pollution exclusion does not apply. The court of appeals disagreed, stating that to distinguish between air inside and outside a building is an arbitrary distinction. Atmosphere (in its ordinarily understood physical sense) is another name for air, but  and this is what is important  it is air thought of as being in a particular place. We would not say that the atmosphere in a room is stuffy, but rather that the air is stuffy. We think of atmosphere as the air surrounding our planet, as when Hamlet spoke of this most excellent canopy, the air. (Act II, scene ii.) So it is that we speak of releasing a balloon into the atmosphere but letting the air out of a tire. Our problem here is how the term atmosphere should be understood when used in a pollution exclusion. This much is clear. The pollution exclusion is directed  at least it was initially  at claims involving the pollution of the natural environment. [6] Thus the exclusion is worded broadly to encompass the natural resources of this planet in their natural setting, namely, land, the atmosphere, and bodies of water. It is less clear, however, whether the exclusion was meant to include contamination of these resources outside their natural setting. Significantly, the pollution exclusion does not use the generic term water but rather the phrase any watercourse or body of water, a description indicative of water in streams, ponds or lakes. The use of the term land, instead of property, whether real or personal, likewise appears directed at land as a natural resource. And, within this context, the term atmosphere, we think, refers to the ambient air. We are not saying here that air inside a building differs from the air outside, or that the inside and outside air do not intermingle. Rather, within the context of the pollution exclusion, the distinction is not in the air itself but where the air happens to be. When the air supply within a building becomes contaminated, it is harmful to the controlled environment of that building; but the contamination of the air in a building is not harmful to the surrounding natural environment, at least not until it escapes into that environment so as to cause personal injury or property damage  a claim not made here. We conclude, therefore, that the term atmosphere in the pollution exclusion does not exclude coverage under the primary policies for the contamination or pollution of air within a building. At one level, the distinction we make may seem to draw a fine line. But words are deliberately chosen in insurance policies to make distinctions, and we think the construction we have given the word atmosphere here is contextually sound and functionally pertinent. Some other courts have arrived at the same conclusion. Thus the Illinois Supreme Court in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wilkin Insulation Co., 144 Ill.2d 64, 161 Ill.Dec. 280, 287, 578 N.E.2d 926, 933 (Ill.1991), concluded that when the word atmosphere is read as part of the whole clause ( i.e., into or upon land, the atmosphere, or any water course or body of water), it is readily apparent that the pollution exclusion applies to property damage arising from the discharge of pollution into the external environment, or onto some part thereof, rather than the release of asbestos fibers within a building.