326 N.C. 133, 388 S.E.2d 557 (1990). 7 . It appears that the references to natural resource damages in the Consent Decree at ¶¶ 14 and 15 are merely meant as a recitation of consideration for the covenant not to sue set forth in ¶¶ 46 and 47. 8 .The form pollution exclusion clause at issue here was replaced in later policies by eliminating the exception for "sudden and accidental” releases. The new form pollution exclusion was apparently designed to eliminate any uncertainty about exclusion of coverage even for accidental pollution. Judge Carter has interpreted this new clause, as a matter of Maine law, to effect such an absolute pollution exclusion. Guilford Industries, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 688 F.Supp. 792 (D.Me.1988), aff’d without op., 879 F.2d 853 (1st Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Indeed, even Massachusetts and North
holding accidental rupture of insureds oil tanks during a flood subject to pollution exclusion clause holding lead paint poisoning covered by the pollution exclusion 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 the release of carbon monoxide into an apartment is not the type of environmental pollution contemplated by the pollution exclusion clause holding that pollution exclusion did not apply to claim arising from ingestion of lead paint because exclusion reasonably may be limited to environmental claims