holding that the word "sudden" in a pollution-exclusion clause in a general liability insurance policy was ambiguous, i.e., was capable of more than one reasonable interpretation, and therefore would be interpreted in favor of the insured to mean "unexpected and unintended"
How later courts described this case
- holding that the word "sudden" in a pollution-exclusion clause in a general liability insurance policy was ambiguous, i.e., was capable of more than one reasonable interpretation, and therefore would be interpreted in favor of the insured to mean "unexpected and unintended"
- holding that “[documents presented by the Insurance Rating Board * * * to the Insurance Commissioner when the ‘pollution exclusion’ was first adopted suggest that the clause was intended to exclude only intentional polluters”
- holding that the EPA-mandated costs incurred by the owner of polluted property are within the coverage of a comprehensive general liability policy absent a clear and unambiguous pollution exclusion clause
- construing “sudden” to mean unexpected, and holding that cost of remediating property damage caused by dumping over several years of industrial and chemical waste on fifty-two-acre site leased by insured to City of Jacksonville for use as landfill eligible for coverage notwithstanding CGL policy’s pollution-exclusion clause
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Insurance, 269 Ga. 326 (1998)
But Claussen is distinguishable for several reasons.
The opinion
Hunt, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because in my view the Federal District Court was correct in finding the “pollution exclusion” clear and unambiguous. While “sudden” may have a number of meanings, and, over the years, may have been used in a number of contexts, in this context it clearly means abrupt and unexpected. Certainly, its use within this context does not encompass the gradual dumping of toxic wastes over a period of several years.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Bell join in this dissent.