swiftness and quickness as well as unexpected)). The Court then found that “sudden” meant “pollution which occurs abruptly, instantly, or within a very short period of time,” and “accident” meant an event which is “unexpected or unintended and does not take place within the usual course.” 731 F.Supp. at 1520. Applying these definitions to the pollution that occurred in that case, Judge Hodges concluded that the pollution occurred gradually, over a long period of time, and as a normal result of the recycling plant’s business operations. Id. Thus, the Court rule ., 905 F.2d 8 (2d Cir.1990) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the insurers where the insured was alleged to have continuously polluted); Centennial Ins. Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 677 F.Supp. 342, 348 (E.E.P.A.1987) (<HOLDING>); U.S. Fidelity and Guar. v. Star Fire Coals,
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 a discharge continuously or even sporadically over a period of time cannot be considered sudden within the meaning of the pollution exclusion holding that pollution exclusion did not apply to claim arising from ingestion of lead paint because exclusion reasonably may be limited to environmental claims 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 a discharge into the environment is necessary for the total pollution clause to be applicable