"[T]his court continues to believe that the pollution-exclusion language is subject to different interpretations."
How later courts described this case
- "[T]his court continues to believe that the pollution-exclusion language is subject to different interpretations."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
L. Corbin, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part. While I agree with the majority opinion reversing the instant case, I respectfully dissent with regard to the majority’s failure to overrule Minerva Enterprises, Inc. v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 312 Ark. 128 , 851 S.W.2d 403 (1993), and its decision to apply it to the present case. Just as I did fourteen years ago, I feel that Minerva was wrongly decided because the Minerva policy, which is virtually identical to the State Farm policy here, did not contain ambiguous language. I hold true to my analysis in Minerva that “[a]ny reasonable and common sense interpretation of the word ‘sewage’ would classify sewage as a ‘contaminant.’ ” Id. at 137 , 851 S.W.2d at 407 . Similarly, any reasonable and common sense interpretation of the word “gasoline” would classify gasoline as an “irritant” or “contaminant.” Since gasoline qualifies as an irritant or contaminant, any property damage arising from the actual discharge or seepage of gasoline is excluded under the terms of the policy.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees and the judgment should be reversed. For this reason, I dissent.