ÿWPC^, …# VU:a %› 0 (¡4ÉÝ 0—ì 0Dƒ Ç BÇ  0J 0T[ 0^¯ 0h 0ru 0|ç 0†c w@é 0) 1u¹ U,. 0dZU,¾U'*êB)DC= AM€éÍ B¶ D3Ó:Ò@ 0@ÁRáôoù!v~h#vÓæ$ AO¹*Æ+ 0DÎ+ D/, BA,˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡íb¸ ¶3|xÒ (G(2"$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€òúòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(/Ã$òòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ¾ U¿ À gÁ U Uà DÄ PÅ Æ Ó€Ò 2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ßÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òJune€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó d))))'ÿÿdxd 0Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòDimmitt€Chevrolet€v.€Southeastern€Fidelity€Ins.€Corp.óó,€636€So.€2d€700€(Fla.€1993);€òòLumbermensÏMut.€Cas.€Co.€v.€Belleville€Indus.€Inc.óó,€555€N.E.2d€568€(Mass.€1990),€òòcert.€denied,€óó502€U.S.€1073€(1992);ÏòòUpjohn€Co.€€v.€New€Hampshire€Ins.€Co.óó,€476€N.W.2d€392€(Mich.€1991);€òòBoard€of€Regents€of€the€Univ.€ofÏMinn.€v.€Royal€Ins.€Co.€of€Americaóó,€517€N.W.2d€888€(Minn.€1994);€òòWaste€Management€of€the€Carolinas,ÏInc.€v.€Peerless€Ins.€Co.óó,€340€S.E.2d€374€(N.C.€1986);€òòHybud€Equip.€Corp.€v.€Sphere€Drake€Ins.€Co.€Ltd.óó,Ï597€N.E.2d€1096€(Ohio€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€507€U.S.€987€(1993).Ì ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòTransamerica€Ins.€Co.€v.€Duro€Bag€Manuf.€Co.óó,€50€F.3d€370€(6th€Cir.€1995);€òòAeroquip.€Corp.€v.ÏAetna€Cas.€and€Sur.€Co.,€Inc.óó,€26€F.3d€893€(9th€Cir.€1994);€òòLiberty€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.Triangle€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€957ÏF.2d€1153€(4th€Cir.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€506€U.S.€824€(1992);€òòAetna€Cas.€&€Sur.€Co.€v.€General€DynamicsÏCorp.óó,€968€F.2d€707€(8th€Cir.€1992)€;€òòHartford€Acc.&€Indem.€Co.€v.€United€States€Fidelity€&€Guar.€Co.óó,€962ÏF.2d€1484€(10th€Cir.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€506€U.S.€955€(1992);€òòNorthern€Ins.€Co.€v.€Aardvark€Assocs.óó,€942ÏF.2d€189€(3rd€Cir.€1991);€òòA.€Johnson€&€Co.€v.€Aetna€Cas.€&€Sur.€€Co.óó,€933€F.2d€66€(1st€Cir.€1991);€NewÏYork€v.€AMRO€Realty€Corp.,€936€F.2d€1420€(2d€Cir.€1991);€€òòNew€Castle€County€v.€Hartford€Accident€&ÏIndem.€Co.óó,€933€F.2d€1162€(3rd€Cir.€1991),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€507€U.S.€1030€(1993);€òòFL€Aerospace€v.€AetnaÏCas.€&€Sur.€Co.óó,€897€F.2d€214€(6th€Cir.€1990),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€498€U.S.€911€(1990);€òòUnited€States€Fidelity€&ÏGuar.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Murray€Ohio€Manuf.€Co.óó,€875€F.2d€868€(6th€Cir.€1989);€òòUnited€States€Fidelity€&€Guar.€Co.Ïv.€Star€Fire€Coals,€Inc.óó,€856€F.2d€31€(6th€Cir.€1988)€;€òòGreat€Lakes€Container€Corp.€v.€Natððl€Union€Fire€Ins.ÏCo.óó,€727€F.2d€30€(1st€Cir.€1984).€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ·Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòNatððl€Grange€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Continental€Cas.€Ins.€Co.óó,€650€F.€Supp.€1404€(S.D.€N.Y.€1986);ÏòòLansco,€Inc.€v.€Dept.€of€Environmental€Protectionóó,€368€A.2d€363€(N.J.€Super.€Ct.1976),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€372ÏA.2d€322€(N.J.€1977).Ì ×Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€$XÔ€òòÔ€$ôÔHecla€Mining€Co.€v.€New€Hampshire€Ins.€Co.óó,€811€P.2d€1083€(Colo.€1991);Ô€$XÔ€Ô€$ôÔòòClaussen€v.€Aetna€ÏCas.€&€Sur.€Co.óó,€380€S.E.2d€686€(Ga.€1989);Ô€$XÔ€Ô€$ôÔòòOutboard€Marine€Corp.€v.€Liberty€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óó,€607€N.E.2dÏ1204€(Ill.€1992);Ô€$XÔ€òòÔ€$ôÔMorton€Int'l,€Inc.€v.€General€Acc.€Ins.€Co.óó,€629€A.2d€831€(N.J.€1993),€òòcert.€denied,€óó114€S.ÏCt.€2764,€129€L.€Ed.€2d€878€(1994);€òòQueen€City€Farms,€Inc.€v.€Central€Nat'l€Ins.€Co.€of€Omahaóó,€882€P.2dÏ703€(Wash.€1993),€€€òòJoy€Technologies,€Inc.,€v.€Liberty€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óó,€421€S.E.2d€493€(W.€Va.€1992);€òòJust€v.ÏLand€Reclamation,€Ltd.óó,€456€N.W.2d€570€(Wis.€1990).Ì ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSt.€Paul€Fire€&€Marine€Ins.€Co.€v.€Northern€Grain€Co.óó,€365€F.€2d€361,€364€(8th€Cir.€1966)€("[T]heÏcourts€are€practically€agreed€that€the€words€'accident'€and€'accidental'€mean€that€which€happens€by€chanceÏor€fortuitously,€without€intention€or€design,€and€which€is€unexpected,€unusual,€and€unforeseen.")Ì eÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòAccordóó,€òòSmith€v.€Hughes€Aircraft€Co.óó,€22€F.3d€1432€(9th€Cir.€1994);€òòNorthern€Ins.€Co.€v.€AardvarkÏAssoc.€Inc.óó,€942€F.2d€189€(3rd€Cir.€1991).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€‡½XXdædÈ7Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌDREXEL€CHEMICAL€COMPANY,à à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)€€Shelby€Circuit€No.€36473€T.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€'(&;+'h|Ó` Å `€€Lß›VS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9504„CV„00082Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBITUMINOUS€INSURANCE€CO.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellee.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OFÏSHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€A.€LANIER,€JUDGEÌÌœÌÌÌ›ÌÌò òMICHAEL€F.€RAFFERTYÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òROBERT€D.€FLYNNÌLOUISE€P.€GAERIGÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌœÌÌÌ›Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SR.€œJ.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓó óà àIn€this€case,€plaintiff,€Drexel€Chemical€Co.,€seeks€a€declaratory€judgment€that€itsÏÑ7€‡½XXdæXXdæ7Ñinsurer,€Bituminous€Insurance€Co.,€is€obligated€to€defend€and€indemnify€Drexel€in€aÏsuit€currently€pending€in€a€Tennessee€federal€district€court.€€Both€Drexel€andÏBituminous€filed€motions€for€summary€judgment.€€The€trial€court€overruled€Drexel'sÏmotion,€but€granted€Bituminous'€motion,€holding€that€a€policy€exclusion€relievedÏBituminous€of€its€duty€to€defend€and€to€provide€coverage€to€Drexel.€€Drexel€hasÏappealed€the€trial€court's€judgment,€arguing€that€the€underlying€claims€against€it€areÏnot€excluded€by€the€policy€provisions.€€For€the€reasons€stated€hereafter,€we€affirm.ÌÌà@ àò òI.Ìà@ àòòFACTUAL€AND€PROCEDURAL€BACKGROUNDóóó óÌà àÌà àDrexel€is€a€company€engaged€in€the€business€of€manufacturing€chemicals.€€InÏ1972,€Drexel€contracted€with€Arlington€Blending€and€Packaging€Co.€(ABPC)€for€theÏformulation€and€packaging€of€Drexel's€chemicals.€The€formulation€process€performedÍby€ABPC€involved€the€mixing,€relabeling,€and€packaging€of€chemicals€that€wereÏshipped€to€its€site€by€various€chemical€companies€in€order€to€prepare€the€chemicals€forÏresale€to€the€consumer.€€Between€1972€and€1976,€Drexel€sent€its€chemicals€to€ABPCÏfor€formulation.€€In€1974,€Drexel€purchased€a€comprehensive€general€liability€andÏproperty€insurance€policy€from€Bituminous,€which€covered€the€period€from€SeptemberÏ1974,€through€October€1975.€€Ìà àAfter€conducting€an€investigation€of€the€ABPC€site,€the€EPA€found€thatÏhazardous€substances€that€were€released€incident€to€the€ABPC€formulation€processÏhad€contaminated€the€soil€and€the€water.€€The€EPA€subsequently€instituted€clean„upÏprocedures.€€In€1986,€the€United€States€filed€suit€under€CERCLA€in€the€federal€districtÏcourt€for€the€Western€District€of€Tennessee€against€William€Bell,€who€was€the€presidentÏof€ABPC,€Richard€Meeks,€vice„president,€and€three€chemical€companies€that€hadÏcontracted€with€ABPC€for€formulation€of€their€chemicals.€€The€United€States€allegedÏthat€all€defendants€were€jointly€and€severally€liable€for€response€costs€incurred€by€theÏUnited€States€in€the€investigation,€administration,€and€enforcement€of€CERCLA.€ÌÌà àIn€January€1990,€two€of€the€original€defendant€chemical€companies,€VelsicolÏChemical€Co.€and€Terminex€International,€Inc.,€filed€a€third„party€complaint€againstÏDrexel€and€several€other€companies€that€had€contracted€with€ABPC,€seekingÏcontribution€in€the€event€that€a€judgment€was€rendered€against€them.€ÌÌà àDrexel€notified€Bituminous€of€the€institution€of€this€suit€and€requested€thatÏBituminous€defend€and€indemnify€it.€Bituminous€denied€liability,€and€Drexel€broughtÍthis€declaratory€judgment€action€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County.€€Relying€on€theÏfollowing€policy€exclusion,€Bituminous€responded€that€it€had€no€duty€either€to€defendÏor€to€indemnify€Drexel:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThis€insurance€does€not€apply:Ìà àà à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*Ìà8 àà8 à(f)€to€bodily€injury€or€property€damage€arising€out€of€theÏdischarge,€dispersal,€release,€or€escape€of€smoke,€vapors,Ïsoot,€fumes,€acids,€alkalis,€toxic€chemicals,€liquids€or€gases,Ïwaste€materials€or€other€irritants,€contaminants€or€pollutantsÏinto€or€upon€land,€the€atmosphere€or€any€water€course€orÏbody€of€water;€but€this€exclusion€does€not€apply€if€suchÏdischarge,€dispersal,€release€or€escape€is€sudden€andÏaccidental;ò ò€ó óÌÓÓÌà àBoth€Drexel€and€Bituminous€filed€motions€for€summary€judgment.€€The€trial€courtÏoverruled€Drexel's€motion€and€granted€Bituminous'€motion,€holding€that€the€pollutionÏexclusion€clause€relieved€Bituminous€of€its€obligation€to€defend€or€indemnify€Drexel.€ÏThe€trial€court€further€found€that€the€matter€did€not€fall€within€the€"sudden€andÏaccidental"€exception€to€the€exclusionary€clause€because€the€release€of€hazardousÏsubstances€alleged€in€the€complaint€against€Drexel€was€not€sudden€and€accidental.€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€Drexel€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summaryÏjudgment€in€favor€of€Bituminous€because€the€release€of€hazardous€substances€thatÏwas€alleged€in€the€present€case€was€"sudden€and€accidental"€within€the€meaning€ofÏthe€pollution€exclusion€provision.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òÌÌIIÌòòPOLICY€LANGUAGE€AT€ISSUEó óóóÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€terms€of€the€insurance€policy€provide,€as€pertinent€to€the€issues€before€us:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€Company€will€pay€on€behalf€of€the€insured€all€sumsÏwhich€the€insured€shall€become€legally€obligated€to€pay€asÏdamages€because€of€bodily€injury€of€property€damage€toÏwhich€this€insurance€applies,€caused€by€an€occurrence,€andÏthe€Company€shall€have€the€right€and€duty€to€defend€anyÏsuit€against€the€insured€seeking€damages€on€account€ofÏsuch€bodily€injury€or€property€damage,€even€if€any€of€theÏallegations€of€the€suit€are€groundless,€false€or€fraudulent.€.€.ÌÌà àà àà à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*ÓÓÌ€€€à8 àà8 àThis€insurance€does€not€apply:Ìà àà àà à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*ÌÓ ` ܃X¦h—X ÓÓÓà8 àà8 à(f)€to€bodily€injury€or€property€damage€arising€out€of€theÏdischarge,€dispersal,€release,€or€escape€of€smoke,€vapors,Ïsoot,€fumes,€acids,€alkalis,€toxic€chemicals,€liquids€or€gases,Ïwaste€materials€or€other€irritants,€contaminants€or€pollutantsÏinto€or€upon€land,€the€atmosphere€or€any€water€course€orÏbody€of€water;€but€this€exclusion€does€not€apply€if€suchÏdischarge,€dispersal,€release€or€escape€is€sudden€andÏaccidental;€ÌÌÓ ` °œXÓÓÓÌÓ  Óò òIII.€ÌòòPOSITIONS€OF€THE€PARTIESó óóóÌÌÓ  Óò òà àó óThe€issue€before€us€is€whether€the€pollution€exclusion€clause€precludesÏcoverage€for€liability€arising€from€the€discharge€of€chemicals€at€the€ABPC€site.€€OurÏresolution€of€this€issue€turns€on€the€meaning€of€the€phrase€"sudden€and€accidental"€asÍit€is€used€in€the€pollution€exclusion€clause.€€Drexel€has€presented€three€alternativeÏarguments€on€appeal,€which€are:€€(1)€€The€pollution€exclusion€claim€in€Bituminous'ÏCGL€policy€does€not€apply€in€the€present€case€because€the€undisputed€facts€show€thatÏthe€alleged€leaks€and€spills€of€Drexel's€chemicals€at€the€ABPC€site€were€"sudden€andÏaccidental";€(2)€This€court€should€follow€those€courts€that€have€held€that€the€wordsÏ"sudden€and€accidental"€in€the€pollution€exclusion€clause€are€ambiguous€and€that€theÏexclusion€should€be€construed€strongly€against€the€insurer€and€in€favor€of€coverage€forÏthe€insured;€and€(3)€€If€the€court€holds€that€the€pollution€exclusion€is€not€ambiguous,Ïthen€there€exist€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€that€preclude€the€entry€of€summaryÏjudgment€against€Drexel.Ìà àÌà àConversely,€Bituminous€argues€that€the€trial€court€correctly€held€that€noÏcoverage€was€provided€due€to€the€pollution€exclusion€clause.€€It€is€Bituminous'€positionÏthat€the€alleged€pollution€was€not€"sudden"€because€it€occurred€gradually€over€aÏperiod€of€time,€nor€was€it€"accidental,"€because€individuals€at€ABPC€intentionallyÏdischarged€the€chemicals€into€the€environment.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòIV.€€ANALYSISóóÌA.€€òòPollution€Exclusion€ClauseóóÌà àÌÓ  Óó óà àIn€1966,€the€standard€form€for€comprehensive€general€liability€(GCL)€insuranceÏpolicies€was€revised€from€an€"accident"„€based€policy€to€an€"occurrence"„based€policy.€ÏSharon€M.€Murphy,€Note,€òòThe€'Sudden€and€Accidental'€Exception€to€the€PollutionÍExclusion€Clause€in€Comprehensive€General€Liability€Insurance€Policies:€The€GordianÏKnot€of€Environmental€Liability,óó€45€VÔ€$ôÔANDÔ€$XÔ.€L.€RÔ€$ôÔEVÔ€$XÔ.€161,€165€(1992);€E.€JoshuaÏRosenkranz,,€Note,€òòThe€Pollution€Exclusion€Clause€Through€the€Looking€Glassóó,€74ÏGÔ€$ôÔEOÔ€$XÔ.€L.€J.€1237,€1247€(1986).€€In€the€revised€policy,€"occurrence"€was€defined€as€"anÏaccident,€including€continuous€or€repeated€exposure€to€conditions,€which€results€inÏbodily€injury€or€property€damage€neither€expected€nor€intended€from€the€standpoint€ofÏthe€insured."€€Robert€M.€Tyler,€Jr.,€Todd€J.€Wilcox,€òòPollution€Exclusion€Clauses:€ÏProblems€in€Interpretation€and€Application€Under€the€Comprehensive€General€LiabilityÏPolicyóó,€17€IÔ€$ôÔDAHOÔ€$XÔ€L.€RÔ€$ôÔEVÔ€$XÔ.€497,€499€(1981).€€Numerous€authorities€concluded€that€theÏresult€of€the€revised€language€defining€"occurrence"€was€that€the€€policies€would€affordÏliability€coverage€for€pollution€that€occurred€gradually€over€a€period€of€time,€as€long€asÏthe€pollution€was€unexpected€or€unintended.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€€Ronsenkranz,€òòsupra,€óóat€1247;€ÏòòGrand€River€Lime€Co.€v.€Ohio€Casualty€Ins.€Co.óó,€289€N.E.€2d€360,€365€(Ohio€Ct.€App.Ï1972);€€òòQueen€City€Farms,€Inc.€v.€Central€Nat'l€Ins.€Co.€of€Omahaóó,€882€P.€2d€703,€717Ï(Wash.€1994);ÌÌà àDue€to€inconsistent€judicial€interpretations€of€the€term€"occurrence,"€theÏ"qualified€pollution€exclusion"€clause€was€added€to€the€GCL€policies€in€1973.€€Wilcox,Ïòòsupraóó,€at€499„50.€€The€pollution€exclusion€clause€that€was€used€between€1973€andÏ1985,€provided:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThis€insurance€does€not€apply...(f)€to€bodily€injury€orÏproperty€damage€arising€out€of€the€discharge,€dispersal,Ïrelease€or€escape€of€smoke,€vapors,€soot,€fumes,€acids,Ïalkalis,€toxic€chemicals,€liquids€or€gasses,€waste€materialsÏor€other€irritants,€contaminants€or€pollutants€into€or€uponÍland,€the€atmosphere€or€any€water€course€or€body€of€water;Ïbut€this€exclusion€does€not€apply€if€such€discharge,Ïdispersal,€release€or€escape€is€sudden€and€accidental.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌNancer€Ballard€&€Peter€M.€Manus,òò€Clearing€Muddy€Waters;€€Anatomy€of€theÏComprehensive€General€Liability€Pollution€Exclusionóó,€75€CÔ€$ôÔORNELLÔ€$XÔ€L.€RÔ€$ôÔEVÔ€$XÔ.€610,€613Ï(1990).ÌÌÓÓÌà àAn€enormous€amount€of€litigation€and€commentary€was€spawned€by€theÏinclusion€of€the€above€clause€into€GCL€policies.€€òòPepper's€Steel€&€Alloys,€Inc.€v.€UnitedÏStates€Fidelity€and€Guaranty€Co.óó,€668€F.€Supp.€1541,€1549€(S.D.€Fla.€1987)€("TheÏcases€swim€the€reporters€like€fish€in€a€lake.")€€The€gravamen€of€this€debate€concernsÏthe€proper€interpretation€of€the€phrase€"sudden€and€accidental."€€Courts€have€debatedÏwith€particular€fervor€the€meaning€of€the€word€"sudden."€€òòTransamerica€Ins.€Co.€v.€DuroÏBag€Manuf.€Co.óó,€50€F.3d€370,€372€(6th€Cir.€1995).ÌÌà àFrom€this€extensive€judicial€controversy€have€emerged€three€positions.€€TheÏfirst,€and€what€appears€to€the€be€majority€position,€is€that€"sudden"€implies€a€temporalÏaspect.€€That€is,€the€pollution€must€occur€abruptly€in€order€for€the€exception€to€theÏexclusion€to€operate€to€re„trigger€coverage.€€Several€state€supreme€courts€haveÏadhered€to€this€view.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€In€addition,€the€majority€of€federal€courts€have€followed€thisÍposition€in€those€states€that€have€not€yet€addressed€the€issue.× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€second€position,€which€is€the€minority€position,€is€that€"sudden"€meansÏ"unexpected€and€unintended."€€The€courts€adhering€to€this€view€hold€that€pollution€thatÏoccurs€over€a€period€of€time€may€be€found€to€be€"sudden"€because€"sudden"€does€notÏdenote€any€€temporal€aspect.× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌà àFinally,€other€courts€have€held€that€the€term€"sudden"€is€ambiguous,€and,Ïtherefore,€the€question€of€coverage€should€be€resolved€in€favor€of€the€insured.× ƒ/ ××  ×ÌÌà àWe€have€found€no€decision€from€any€Tennessee€state€court€that€has€addressedÍthe€issue€of€the€construction€to€be€afforded€the€phrase€"sudden€and€accidental"€withinÏthe€context€of€a€pollution€exclusion€clause.€€However,€in€òòUnited€States€Fidelity€&ÏGuaranty€Co.€v.€Murray€Ohio€Manuf.€Co.óó,€693€F.€Supp.€617€(M.D.€Tenn.€1988),€òòaff'dóó,Ï875€F.€2d€868€(6th€Cir.€1989),€the€federal€district€court€for€the€Middle€District€ofÏTennessee€held€that€Tennessee€courts€would€find€that€the€term€"sudden"€combinesÏboth€the€idea€of€€"unexpected"€and€the€idea€of€"quick."€€òòId.óó€at€621.ÌÌà àThe€facts€of€òòMurrayóó€virtually€mirror€the€facts€at€bar.€€In€òòMurrayóó,€the€United€StatesÏfiled€suit€under€CERCLA€against€an€owner€of€a€hazardous€waste€site€and€fourÏcompanies€that€contracted€with€the€site€for€disposal€of€their€waste€for€response€andÏclean„up€costs.€€òòId.óó€€at€618.€€The€four€defendant€companies€then€filed€a€third„partyÏcomplaint€against€Murray€Ohio,€seeking€contribution€for€the€amount€of€any€judgmentÏthat€was€rendered€in€the€original€suit.€€òòId.óó€€Murray€Ohio's€insurer€denied€coverage.€€TheÏinsurer€filed€a€suit€for€declaratory€judgment,€arguing€that€it€was€not€obligated€to€defendÏor€indemnify€Murray€Ohio€due€to€the€pollution€exclusion€clause€contained€in€the€policy.€ÏòòId.óó€at€619.€€The€primary€issue€in€the€case€was€whether€the€contamination€that€occurredÏresulted€from€the€"sudden€and€accidental"€dispersion€of€hazardous€substances.€ÌÌà àMurray€Ohio€argued€that€"sudden"€should€not€be€construed€as€having€anyÏtemporal€aspect,€but€rather,€should€be€construed€as€meaning€"unexpected,"Ï"unforeseen,"€or€"fortuitous."€€òòId.óó€at€619.€€According€to€Murray€Ohio,€liability€coverageÏwould€be€required€under€the€policy€for€"all€òòunintended€resultsóó€of€an€insured€party'sÏintentional€acts,€excluding€coverage€only€for€òòintended€resultsóó€of€intentional€acts."€€òòId.óóÌÌà àThe€court€rejected€Murray€Ohio's€argument.€€òòId.óó€at€621.€€The€court€first€noted€thatÏit€found€no€ambiguity€in€either€the€exclusion€clause€or€the€term€"sudden."€€òòId.óó€€The€courtÏthen€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€common€sense€meaning€in€everyday€parlance€of€theÏterm€'sudden'€combines€both€the€idea€of€'unexpected,'€andÏthe€idea€of€'quick.'€€Because€the€Policy€does€not€otherwiseÏdefine€'sudden,'€the€Court€is€unwilling€to€read€out€of€thisÏword€the€temporal€connotation€that€it€possesses€in€itsÏeveryday€use.ÌÌòòId.óóÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€court€ruled€that€coverage€applied€only€if€the€release€was€"sudden€andÏaccidental,€that€is€occurring€both€unexpectedly€and€relatively€quickly€in€time."€€òòId.óó€€ÏBecause€in€òòMurrayóó,€the€waste€had€been€transported€and€disposed€at€the€site€forÏapproximately€six€years,€and€there€was€no€evidence€of€a€breakdown,€leak,€or€otherÏ"sudden"€event,€the€court€held€that€the€pollution€was€not€"sudden,"€and€thus,€theÏinsurer€had€no€duty€either€to€defend€or€indemnify€Murray€Ohio.€€òòId.óó€at€622„23.€€In€anÏunpublished€disposition,€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€lower€court'sÏdecision€in€òòMurrayóó.€€€òòMurrayóó,€875€F.€2d€868€(6th€Cir.€1989).ÌÌà àSimilarly,€in€òòOsco,€Inc.€v.€St.€Paul€Fire€and€Marine€Ins.€Co.óó,€656€N.E.2d€548€(Ind.ÏCt.€App.€1995),€the€Indiana€court€of€appeals€held€that€under€Tennessee€law,€theÏinsurer€had€no€duty€to€defend€or€indemnify€its€insured€because€the€contaminationÏoccurred€over€a€period€of€years.€€òòId.óó€at€550.€€The€court€relied€on€òòMurrayóó€in€holding€thatÍTennessee€law€would€interpret€"sudden"€as€possessing€a€temporal€element.€€òòId.óó€atÏ549.ÌÌà àSeveral€Sixth€Circuit€decisions€have€adopted€the€same€position€as€that€of€theÏòòMurrayóó€court„„that€"sudden"€incorporates€a€temporal€element.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,ÏòòTransamericaóó,€50€F.3d€370;€òòStar€Fireóó,€856€F.2d€31;€òòEmployers€Ins.€of€Wassau€v.ÏPetroleum€Specialties,€Inc.óó,€69€F.3d€98€(6th€Cir.€1995);€òò€Harrow€Products,€Inc.€v.€LibertyÏMut.€Ins.€co.óó,€64€F.3d€1015€(6th€Cir.€1995).€€For€example,€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€ofÏAppeals€stated€in€òòStar€Fireóó:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWe€believe€the€everyday€meaning€of€the€term€'sudden'€isÏexactly€what€this€clause€means.€€We€do€not€believe€that€it€isÏpossible€to€define€'sudden'€without€reference€to€a€temporalÏelement€that€joins€together€conceptually€the€immediate€andÏthe€unexpected.€€It€must€also€be€emphasized€that€the€focusÏof€this€'sudden€and€accidental'€exception€to€the€generalÏpollution€exclusion€clause€is€on€the€nature€of€the€dischargeÏof€the€pollution€itself,€not€on€the€nature€of€the€damagesÏcaused.ÌÌòòStar€Fireóó,€856€F.€2d€at€34.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAfter€having€reviewed€cases€that€elected€to€take€an€alternate€interpretive€path,Ïwe€are€persuaded€by€the€holdings€and€rationales€of€those€cases€following€the€majorityÏposition,€which€is€that€the€proper€interpretation€of€the€term€"sudden"€necessarilyÏincludes€a€temporal€element.€€Contracts€of€insurance€are€to€be€interpreted€like€otherÏcontracts€according€to€the€usual,€natural,€and€ordinary€meaning€of€the€languageÏemployed.€€òòAmerican€Nat'l.€Property€&€Cas.€Co.€v.€Grayóó,€€803€S.W.2d€at€696.€€€€We€findÏthat€€the€usual,€natural,€and€ordinary€meaning€of€"sudden"€is€"abrupt"„„the€opposite€of€Í"gradual,"€€"routine,"€or€"continuous."€òòSeeóó,€òòHartford€Accid.€&€Indem.€Co.€v.€U.S.€FidelityÏand€Guaranty€Co.óó,€962€F.2d€1484,€1489€(10th€Cir.€1992),€òòcert.€denied,€óó506€U.S.€955Ï(1992).€€€ÌÌà àThe€standard€GCL€policy€excludes€coverage€for€claims€arising€from€pollutionÏdamage€unless€the€discharge€of€the€pollutants€was€"sudden€and€accidental."€€BecauseÏ"accidental"€generally€means€unexpected€or€unintended,× ƒ0 ××  ×€to€construe€"sudden"€toÏmean€the€same€would€be€completely€redundant.€€€òòCharter€Oil€Co.€v.€AmericanÏEmployers'€Ins.€Co.óó,€69€F.3d€1160€(D.C.€Cir.€1995);€òòNorthern€Ins.€Co.€v.€AardvarkÏAssocs.,€Inc.óó,€942€F.2d€189,€192€(3rd€Cir.€1991).€€Such€an€interpretation€would€renderÏthe€term€"sudden"€without€independent€significance€because€the€word€"accidental"Ïnecessarily€implies€unexpectedness.€€òòAetna€Cas.€&€Sur.€Co.€v.€General€DynamicsÏCorp.óó,€968€F.€2d€707€(8th€Cir.€1992).€€It€is€evident€that€in€order€for€coverage€to€beÏreinvoked,€the€discharge€must€have€been€both€"sudden"€ò òandó ó€"accidental."€Both€ofÏthese€independent€requirements€must€be€satisfied.× ƒ1 ××  ×Ìà àÌà àWe€believe€the€proper€rule€to€be€applied,€therefore,€is€as€follows:€€WhenÏdischarges€of€pollution€occur€on€a€regular,€ongoing€basis€over€a€lengthy€period€of€timeÏas€a€normal€part€of€an€operation,€such€discharges€are€not€"sudden"€within€the€meaningÍof€the€pollution€exclusion€clause.€€However,€where€the€damage€is€caused€by€a€"fewÏdiscrete€polluting€events,€each€of€which€was€short€in€duration€and€accidental€inÏnature,"€the€discharge€will€fall€within€the€"sudden€and€accidental"€exception€to€theÏpollution€exclusion€and,€therefore,€the€insurer€will€be€liable€for€coverage€under€theÏpolicy.€€òòGrant„Southern€Iron€&€Metal€Co.€v.€CNA€Ins.€Co.óó,€905€F.2d€954,€957€(6th€Cir.Ï1990).ÌÌà àWe€reject€appellant's€contention€that€the€phrase€"sudden€and€accidental"€isÏambiguous.€€In€doing€so,€we€agree€with€one€court's€observation€that€this€"language€isÏclear€and€plain,€something€only€a€lawyer's€ingenuity€could€make€ambiguous."€ÏòòAmerican€Motorists€Ins.€Co.€v.€General€Host€Corp.óó,€667€F.€Supp.€1423€(D.€Kan.€1987),Ïòòaffððd,€óó946€F.2d€1482€(10th€Cir.€1991).€€As€stated€by€our€Supreme€Court:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIt€is€the€duty€of€the€Court,€where€there€is€no€ambiguity,€toÏtake€the€ordinary€meaning€of€the€words€used,€favoringÏneither€party€in€their€construction.€€Creation€of€an€ambiguityÏwhere€none€exists€is€not€authorized€by€the€rule€requiringÏconstruction€of€the€language€of€an€insurance€policy€mostÏstrongly€against€the€insurance€company.ÌÌÓÓòòWinecoff€v.€Nationwide€Mutual€Ins.€Co.óó,€444€S.W.€2d€84,€86„87€(Tenn.€1969).€ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.€€òòConclusions€of€Lawóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€assessing€the€evidence€supporting€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€we€mustÏreview€the€matter€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party,€drawing€allÏreasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€party's€favor.€òò€Carvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2dÍ23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€standard€governing€this€court's€review€of€a€trial€court's€grantÏof€summary€judgment€is€confined€to€a€review€of€whether€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.ÏCiv.€P.€56€have€been€satisfied.€€As€stated€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòCarvellóó:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àTenn.R.Civ.P.€56.03€provides€that€summary€judgment€isÏonly€appropriate€where:€(1)€there€is€no€genuine€issue€withÏregard€to€the€material€facts€relevant€to€the€claim€or€defenseÏcontained€in€the€motion,€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210Ï(Tenn.€1993);€and€(2)€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€aÏjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€the€undisputed€facts.€ÏòòAnderson€v.€Standard€Register€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2d€555,€559Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€The€moving€party€has€the€burden€of€provingÏthat€is€motion€satisfied€these€requirements.€€òòDownen€v.ÏAllstate€Ins.€Co.óó,€811€S.W.2d€523,€524€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌòòId.óóò ò€ó óat€26.ò òÌó óà àÌÓÓà àÌà àBecause€we€have€determined€that€"sudden"€includes€both€a€temporal€elementÏand€a€sense€of€the€unexpected,€we€must€measure€these€standards€against€theÏevidence€regarding€the€pollution„causing€events€alleged€to€have€occurred€at€theÏABPC€site.€€In€evaluating€whether€there€remains€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€toÏwhether€the€pollution€was€"sudden€and€accidental,"€we€have€before€us€the€pleadingsÏfiled€in€this€matter,€the€original€pleadings€filed€in€the€EPA€suit,€and€the€depositionÏtestimony€of€William€Bell,€president€of€ABPC.€Ìà àÌà àBell€testified€in€his€deposition€that€the€only€product€that€ABPC€formulated€forÏDrexel€was€maleic€hydrazide,€which€is€a€growth€regulator€used€on€tobacco€to€strip€offÏthe€suckers€located€on€the€bottom€of€the€tobacco.€The€maleic€hydrazide€wasÏformulated€in€a€14,000€gallon€"blending€tank."€€Initially,€the€blending€tank€was€usedÍonly€for€formulating€maleic€hydrazide,€but€was€later€used€for€more€toxic€chemicals.€ÌÌà àBituminous€argues€that€the€14,000„gallon€blending€tank€in€which€the€maleicÏhydrazide€was€formulated€was€an€outdoor€earthen€pit€with€no€side€walls.€€According€toÏBituminous,€ABPC's€routine€blending€of€chemicals€in€an€open€dirt€pit€constituedÏintentional€behavior€of€an€ongoing€nature€and€thus,€any€spills€or€leaks€could€not€haveÏbeen€"sudden€or€accidental."€€€In€support€of€their€argument,€Bituminous€has€directed€usÏsolely€to€the€following€portion€of€Bell's€deposition:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ:à àYou€used€the€word€today€'Adavex'€in€talking€aboutÏmaterials€that€were€later€blended€in€the€tank€which€I€believeÏhas€been€marked€on€Exhibit€1€to€your€deposition„„Will€youÏagain€identify€the€tank€that€we€are€talking€about?Ìà8 àà8 àA:à àIt€is€the€14,000„gallon€tank.Ìà8 àà8 à*à à*à à*à à*à à*à à*Ìà8 àà8 àQ:à àWas€it€in€a€concrete€containment€area?Ìà8 àà8 àA:à àIt€was€in€a€14€by€14€by€14€deep€pit€with€a€cover.€NoÏwalls,€but€a€metal€cover€over€the€tank.€ÌÌ€ÌÓÓà àWe€find€Bituminous'€contention€to€be€without€merit.€€A€thorough€examination€ofÏthe€600„page€deposition€reveals€that€Bell€described€the€blending€tank€as€a€tankÏsupported€by€legs€that€was€placed€in€a€concrete€hole€in€the€ground€and€was€not,€asÏBituminous€alleges,€an€open€dirt€pit€in€the€ground.ÌÌà àPertinent€portions€of€Bell's€deposition€testimony€relating€to€the€blending€tank€areÏas€follows:à àÌÓÓ€à8 àà8 àQ:à àWhat€sort€of€opening€was€there€in€the€tank€to€do€that?Ìà8 àà8 àA:à àI€don't€remember€what€size€the€opening€was,€but€itÏwas€like,€you€know,€a€three€foot€or€two€foot€opening,Ïsomething€of€that€type.€€The€tank€was€also€covered€with€aÍstructure€above€it.€€But€it€was€an€open€sided€structure€overÏthe€tank.Ìà8 àà8 àQ:à àJust€a€roof€over€it?Ìà8 àà8 àA:à àA€roof€over€it,€right,€a€metal€roof.Ìà8 àà8 àQ:à àWhat€was€the€blending€tank€sitting€on?Ìà8 àà8 àA:à àIt€was€sitting€in€a€hole€in€the€ground.€€It€was€a€20„inchÏconcrete€pad€with,€I€think,€14„inch€sides,€sitting€on„„in€theÏground€on€legs€in€this€hole.Ìà8 àà8 àQ:à àThe€bottom€of€the€hole€was€concrete?Ìà8 àà8 àA:à àYes.Ìà8 àà8 àQ:à àAnd€up€the€sides€was€concrete?Ìà8 àà8 àA:à àWas€concrete,€right.€€And€the€concrete€came€upÏabove€the€ground€also.Ìà8 àà8 àQ:à àWas€there€any€kind€of€opening€or€drain€in€thatÏconcrete€floor?Ìà8 àà8 àA:à àNo,€there€was€not.ÌÌÌà àReading€from€a€report€that€Bell€prepared€and€sent€to€the€state€of€Tennessee,ÏBell€ÌÌstated:Ìà8 àà8 àA:€€Okay.€€'Area€K€is€where€the€bulk€of€our€liquid€chemicalsÏare€made.€€The€tank€in€the€pit€that€is€14€feet€deep...'€ÌÌÌÓÓà àAlthough€we€reject€Bituminous'€contention€that€the€pollution€was€effectuatedÏintentionally,€we€nevertheless€conclude€from€the€record€that€the€pollution€was€notÏ"sudden."ÌÓÓÌà àThe€complaint€filed€in€the€underlying€action€by€the€United€States€alleges€asÏfollows:Ìà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 à13.€€While€Arlington€Blending€was€engaged€in€theÏformulation€and€packaging€of€pesticide€product€it€deposited,Ïdumped,€placed,€spilled€and€otherwise€disposed€of€aÏvariety€of€chemical€waste€on€the€Arlington€Blending€site....Ìà8 àà8 à14.€€At€various€times€relevant€herein,€Arlington€BlendingÏstored€drums€containing€chemicals€at€the€ArlingtonÏBlending€site.€€"Losses"€of€some€of€the€chemicals€from€theÏdrums,€constituted€chemical€wastes,€occurred€by€spilling€orÍleaking....Ìà8 àà8 à17.€€At€the€Arlington€Blending€site,€EPA€collected€the€solidÏand€liquid€chemical€wastes€and€transported€them€to€EPAÏapproved€sites€for€disposal...€A€concrete€pit€filled€with€debrisÏand€contaminated€water€was€emptied....ÌÌÓÓà àÌÓÓà àWith€respect€to€the€nature€of€the€discharges€that€occurred,€Bell€testified:Ìà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 àA:à àThere€is€small€spills€and€leaks€from€equipment€whenÏyou€disconnect.€€That€is€part€of€any€operation.€Ìà8 àà8 à*à à*à à*à à*€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€*Ìà8 àà8 àA:€€The€other€way€that€the€chemicals€got€on€the€ground€wasÏsimply€by,€you€know,€movement€in€and€out€of€building€andÏall.Ìà8 àà8 à*à à*à à*à à*à à*€€€€€€€*à àÌà8 àà8 àA:à àThe€question€is€kind€of€hard€for€me€to€answer.€€IÏmean,€I€don't€assume€that€the€spills€are€going€to€occur.€ÏHowever,€I€do€think€that€measures€should€be€set€up€toÏprevent€them€or€to€contain€them.Ìà8 àà8 à*à à*à à*à à*€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€*à àÌà8 àà8 àQ:à àNow,€Arlington€Blending€and€Packaging€CompanyÏnever€had€a€major€spill,€did€they?Ìà8 àà8 àA:à àIn€that€time€period,€no.€€We€did€have€a€spill€as€IÏmention€of€the€Dimethoate€which€blew€from€a€couple€ofÏdrums.€€So€as€today's€standards€that€would€have€beenÏconsidered€major.€€That€was€the€only€one.€Ìà8 àà8 à*à à*à à*à à*€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€*à àÌà8 àà8 àQ:à àIn€your€opinion€was€it€inevitable€that€there€would€beÏdrips€and€drops€when€you€were€loading€chemicals?Ìà8 àà8 àA:à àThere€were€always€drips€when€we€were€handlingÏprocessing€chemicals€and€we€tried€to€take€measures€toÏcaptures€[sic]€those€drips.€Ìà àà à*€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€*à àÌà8 àà8 àA:€€Okay.€€'Area€K€is€where€the€bulk€of€our€liquid€chemicalsÏare€Ìà8 àà8 àmade.€The€€tank€in€the€pit€that€is€14€feet€deep.€The€spillsÏaround€this€area€fall€into€the€pit€and€were€pumped€onto€theÏwall€or€walk€and€then€later€pumped€across€the€railroadÏtracks.'€Ìà8 àà8 à*à à*à à*à à*à à*€€€€€€€*à àÌà8 àà8 àQ:à àSo,€by€your€statements€in€those€two€sentences€thatÏyou€just€read,€any€material€spilled€from€that€tank€would€haveÍbeen„„at€that€time,€was€pumped€out€into€a€ditch€across€fromÏthe€railroad€tracks?Ìà8 àà8 àA:à àThat€is€correct.€€That€was€the€Maleic€Hydrazide€steamÏtramp€tank.€€They€make€hydrazide€and€sucker€agents.€€ThatÏis€what€it€was€designed€to€take€the€waste€from€that€product.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€undisputed€facts€establish€that€the€contamination€found€by€the€EPA€resultedÏfrom€numerous€spills€and€leaks€that€occurred€in€the€regular€operation€of€the€ABPCÏfacility€over€the€course€of€several€years.€€Thus,€Bituminous€has€met€its€burden€ofÏestablishing€that€the€alleged€pollution€falls€within€the€policy's€pollution€exclusionÏclause.€€Because€these€releases€were€commonplace€events€that€occurred€in€theÏregular€course€of€business,€they€cannot€be€deemed€"sudden€and€accidental."€ÏAccordingly,€we€hold€that€Bituminous€has€no€duty€to€indemnify€Drexel€in€this€case.ÌÌà àAn€insurer's€duty€to€defend€is€separate€and€distinct€from€the€insurer's€obligationÏto€pay€claims€under€the€policy.€€òòJackson€Housing€Authority€v.€Auto„Owners€Ins.€Co.óó,Ï686€S.W.2d€917€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€The€duty€to€defend€is€broader€than€the€duty€toÏindemnify.€€This€court€must€review€the€allegations€of€the€complaint€and€determineÏwhether€any€of€them€are€covered€under€the€policy.€€If€even€one€of€the€allegations€isÏcovered€by€the€policy,€the€insurer€has€a€duty€to€defend,€irrespective€of€the€number€ofÏallegations€that€may€be€excluded€by€the€policy.€€òòU.S.€Fidelity€&€Guar.€Co.€v.€MurrayÏOhio€Manuf.€Co.óó,€693€F.€Supp.€617€(M.D.€Tenn.€1988).€An€insurer€may€not€properlyÏrefuse€to€defend€an€action€against€its€insured€unless€"it€is€plain€from€the€face€of€theÏcomplaint€that€the€allegations€fail€to€state€facts€that€bring€the€case€within€or€potentiallyÏwithin€the€policy's€coverage."€€òòGlens€Falls€Ins.€Co.€v.€Happy€Day€Laundry,€Inc.óó,€19784ÍT.V.,€1989€WL€91082€(Tenn.€App.€August€14,€1989).€€€Ìà àÌà àThe€Court€in€òòSt.€Paul€Fire€and€Marine€Ins.€Co.€v.€Torpocoóó,€879€S.W.2d€831Ï(Tenn.€1994),€stated€the€applicable€rule€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIt€is€accepted€in€the€overwhelming€majority€of€jurisdictionsÏthat€the€obligation€of€a€liability€insurance€company€toÏdefend€an€action€brought€against€the€insured€by€a€thirdÏparty€is€to€be€determined€solely€by€the€allegationsÏcontained€in€the€complaint€in€that€action....€€Accordingly,€ifÏthe€allegations...are€within€the€risk€insured€against€andÏthere€is€a€potential€basis€for€recovery,€then€[the€insurer]€Ïmust€defend€...,€regardless€of€the€actual€facts€or€the€ultimateÏgrounds€on€which€...€liability€to€the€injured€parties€may€beÏpredicated....€€In€any€event,€the€pleading€test€forÏdetermination€of€the€duty€to€defend€is€based€exclusively€onÏthe€facts€as€alleged€rather€than€on€the€facts€as€they€actuallyÏare....€€ÌÌòòId.óó,€€at€835€€(quoting€òòAmerican€Policyholdersðð€Ins.€Co.€v.€Cumberland€Cold€StorageÏCo.óó,€373€A.2d€247€(Me.1977)).ÌÌà à€€ÌÓÓà àThus,€the€scope€of€our€inquiry€in€determining€whether€Bituminous€possesses€aÏduty€to€defend€is€confined€to€the€averments€of€the€pleadings.€€òòGravesóó,€745€S.W.2d€atÏ283;€òòFirst€National€Bank€in€Bristol€v.€South€Carolina€Ins.€Co.óó,€207€Tenn.€520,€341ÏS.W.2d€569€(1960).€€ÌÌà àThe€third„party€complaint€filed€against€Drexel€alleges€that€between€1971€andÏ1975,€Drexel€and€other€defendant€companies€contracted€wth€ABPC€for€the€formulationÏof€various€chemical€products€that€contained€hazardous€substances€.€€The€complaintÏfurther€alleges€that€wastes€generated€during€the€formulating€process€containedÏhazardous€substances€that€were€treated€or€disposed€of€at€ABPC€and€therebyÍcontaiminated€the€site€with€hazardous€substances.€ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€allegations€of€the€complaint,€we€are€of€the€opinion€thatÏBituminous€has€no€duty€to€defend€Drexel€in€the€underlying€litigation.€€The€pollution€isÏalleged€to€have€occurred€over€a€period€of€four€years€during€the€regular€course€ofÏABPC's€business€of€formulating,€treating,€and€disposing€of€chemicals.€€In€accordanceÏwith€our€previous€discussion,€this€type€of€activity€cannot€be€deemed€"sudden"€withinÏthe€meaning€of€the€pollution€exclusion€clause.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€toÏappellant,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àóóHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà à