THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1997
Style: Deni Associates of Fla., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 89,115; E.
C. Fogg v. Fla. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., No. 89,300.

Facts: In both of these cases, business owners were sued for injuries occurring on theirbusiness premises. One business spilled ammonia, releasing fumes. The other treated afield with pesticide, spraying men in an adjacent field. Both owners made claims forcoverage under their business liability insurance. In both instances, coverage was deniedbased on policy exclusions. The policies excluded coverage for the "discharge, dispersal,release or escape" of pollutants, defined as "any irritant or contaminant, including smoke,vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste." The trial court ruled thatcoverage was not excluded because pollution exclusion clauses are intended to excludeenvironmental damage claims but not accidents occurring suddenly. The district court ofappeal reversed, holding that the exclusionary language was clear and clearly applicable.

Issues: (1) Whether the exclusionary language is clear.

(2) If the language is ambiguous, should it be construed against the insurer?