receive like treatment in a court of law. This Court may not disregard Industrial Indemnity absent an intervening U.S. Supreme Court or en banc Eleventh Circuit Decision to the contrary. Flowers v. United States, 764 F.2d 759, 761 (11th Cir.1985). Moreover, numerous state and federal courts in other jurisdictions agree with Judge Hodges’ reasoning. See A. Johnson & Co., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 741 F.Supp. 298 (D.Mass.1990) (the Massachusetts Court applying Maine law held that the pollution exclusion was unambiguous and excluded coverage for pollution over an extended period of time); see also Lumberman’s Mutual Cas. Co. v. Belleville Indus., Inc., 407 Mass. 675, 555 N.E.2d 568, 572 (1990); Bentz v. Mutual Fire, Marine and Inland Ins. Co., 83 Md.App. 524, 575 A.2d 795 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Grant Southern Iron & Metal Co. v. CNA Ins.
holding that there is nothing arbitrary or capricious about the requirement holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact holding that there is nothing intrinsically unclear about the terms sudden and accidental recognizing that courts will not add terms to a contract about which the contract is silent holding that an employeess selfserving statements about his ability  are insufficient to contradict an employers negative assessment of that ability such statements may create a material dispute about the employees ability but do nothing to create a dispute about the employers honesty  do nothing in other words to establish that the proffered reason is a pretext for discrimination