Our purpose here is to analyze the courts' treatment of the pollution exclusion clause. From the context of insurance policy interpretation, decisions regarding the exclusion will be reviewed and placed in a national perspective. The Ohio decisions will be examined against the backdrop of current trends and the national consensus.

We conclude, for the reasons which follow, that the Ohio Supreme Court, when presented with the issue, should not adopt the findings of the Ohio appellate courts in interpreting the pollution exclusion clause, but should recognize that those decisions were wrong and follow the law which finds sudden and accidental not ambiguous. That is, the standard pollution exclusion clause is not ambiguous as drafted and the wording "sudden and accidental" should be accorded its literal and common meaning. These insurance coverage disputes should not be determined on the basis of the judicial canons of construction for insurance policies but on factual determinations in relation to these policies.