1278, 1318-24 (D.Utah 1994), aff'd, 52 F.3d 1522 (10th Cir. 1995), provided a detailed analysis of the problems of applying the "sudden and accidental” exception to "pollution prone” polluters. Problems arise when the polluter "attempts to 'break down its long term waste practices into temporal components.’ ” Quaker State, 868 F.Supp. at 1324 (quoting Smith v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 10 F.3d 1448, 1453 (9th Cir.1993)). In such a situation, the polluter may identify "numerous releases which individually are abrupt or ‘sudden,’ but which taken together cannot fairly be said to be ‘unexpected’ or ‘accidental.’ ” Id. 8 . Furthermore, the analysis in Quaker State would prevent this Court from breaking down the long term waste into temporal components. Quaker State, 868 F.Supp. at 1324 n. 79 (<HOLDING>); see also Smith v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 10
holding that damage to realty was not excluded from coverage if such damage resulted from subsidence caused by something other than soil condition despite homeowners experts description of the damage as settling holding that a landowner who lost a strip of property to a highway widening project could not recover losses caused by concurrent placement of a median strip because when less than the entire property is taken compensation for damage to the remainder can be awarded only if such damage is caused by the taking and cjonstruction of the median not the taking caused the alleged damage holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations holding that the drafting history of the sudden and accidental exception to the pollution exclusion clause of a cgl policy facilitated an interpretation of sudden to include unexpected holding that proof of a nonrecurring sudden and accidental release should not operate to extend coverage to property damage caused by a myriad of more routine spills