Thomas S. Just and Lisa P. Just, Shirley M. Bosch, Roger Dosemegan, John Walterman and Barbara Walterman, Eugene…

Summary

The court held that the pollution-exclusion phrase "sudden and accidental" is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the insured to mean unexpected and unintended, rather than requiring an abrupt or immediate discharge. Because the pleadings and evidentiary materials supported potential coverage, the insurer had a duty to defend and summary judgment was improper. Justice Steinmetz, dissenting, would have construed the phrase as unambiguous and temporally limited, affirming summary judgment for the insurer.