# Claussen v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

> Supreme Court of Georgia · June 22, 1989 · 259 Ga. 333

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582313

## Case

- **Full name:** CLAUSSEN v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Georgia
- **Decided:** June 22, 1989
- **Citations:** 259 Ga. 333; 380 S.E.2d 686; 29 ERC (BNA) 1901; 1989 Ga. LEXIS 287
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hunt
- **Judges:** Clarke, Marshall, Bell, Hunt
- **Cited by:** 146 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582313

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- holding that “sudden” refers to unexpectedness rather than to duration of event

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582313. Public record. Not legal advice.