Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be аffirmed, with costs.
This appeal involves a genеral comprehensive liability insurance pоlicy containing the same "pollution exclusiоn” clause, and the same exception for "sudden and accidental” dispersals, that we construed in Technicon Elecs. Corp. v American Home Assur. Co. (
Plaintiff here is seeking a declaration that defendant insurer is obligated to pay "all expenses which plaintiff has paid or will have tо pay” in connection with a consent order issued by the Department of Environmental Conservation to decontaminate and restore its рroperty. The action arose out of the leaching of hazardous wastes which were allegedly disposed by plaintiff’s predecessоr’s: (1) "burying drums containing the wastes,” (2) "dumping waste liquids from 55-gallon drums into open pits and then disposing of the drums in the pit,” and (3) discharging "wastes through a pipe into pits at thе site.” In other words, plaintiff seeks to be indemnified fоr intentional discharges of waste, leading to the ultimate pollution of the environment. Such an "occurrence,” resulting from purposeful conduct, cannot be considered "accidеntal” under our analysis in Technicon (id.).
We also reject plаintiff’s contention that since it was not the actuаl polluter, but merely inherited the problem from the prior landowner, the pollution exclusion clause cannot bar its present insurance сlaim. Simply put, there is nothing in the language of the рollution exclusion clause to suggest that it is not аpplicable when liability is premised on the conduct of someone other than the insured. Plаintiff’s reliance on Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.