delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 This is аn appeal from a summary judgment entered in the Seventh Judicial District Court, McCone County. The District Court ruled that damages to the home and personal property of Mike and Vera Sokoloski for which they sought homeowners’ insurance coverage were not covered under their insurance policy. We affirm.
¶2 The issue is whether the court erred in granting summary judgment for the insurer, American West Insurance Company.
¶3 During four or five weeks in the holiday season of fall 1994, the Sokoloskis burned scented candles in their home. This caused a discharge of smoke and soot which accumulated on the walls, ceilings, and floors of the home and on their personal property. The Sokoloskis admit noticing soot accumulations on the glass candle containers while they were burning the candles, but they deny burning candles after they realized the smoke was damaging their property.
¶4 The Sokoloskis’ home and its contents were insured under an “all-risk” homeowner’s policy issued by American West Insurance Company. The Sokоloskis contacted American West concerning the smoke and soot damage, but American West denied coverage, stating that the damages were excludеd under a pollution exception in the insurance policy.
¶5 The Sokoloskis subsequently filed this action for payment of their claim and all expenses related tо pursuit of the claim. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court ruled in favor of American West. The Sokoloskis appeal.
Discussion
¶6 Did the court err in granting summary judgment for American West?
¶7 This Court’s standard of review of a summary judgment is de novo.
Treichel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
(1997),
¶8 In this case, the District Court determined that the pollution ex- . elusion clause in the insurance policy barrеd coverage of the claimed loss and that the damages to personal property were not sudden and accidental. The Sokoloskis argue that both оf those determinations were wrong.
f 9 The American West insurance policy held by the Sokoloskis covered physical loss to the dwelling under Coverage A, but it excluded coverage of damages caused by the discharge of pollutants “unless the pollution is itself caused by a Peril Insured Against under Coverage C.” “Pollutants” is defined under the pоlicy as “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant,
including smoke,
vapor,
soot,
fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.” (Emphasis added.) ¶10 The Sokoloskis argue that “pollutant” is an environmental term of art which applies only to discharges of pollution into the environment from sources outside the home. They cite a Ninth Circuit case,
Enron Oil Trading & Transp. Co. v. Walbrook Ins. Co.
(9th Cir. 1997),
¶11 We next proceed, as Coverage A of the insurance policy requires, to determinе whether damage from the pollutants smoke and soot is insured against under Coverage C. Coverage C, Personal Property, specifically covers damage from “Smoke, meaning sudden and accidental damages from smoke.”
¶12 The question remaining is whether the smoke damage from the candles was “sudden and accidental damage.” The District Court ruled that damage over a four to five week period was not sudden. ¶13 The Sokoloskis cite
New Castle County v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.
(3rd Cir. 1991),
¶14 The issue of the meaning of the word “sudden” in а pollution exclusion clause has not previously been considered by this Court. We note, however, that the District Court’s ruling was consistent with other courts’ recent decisiоns on the meaning of the word “sudden” in similar insurance policy provisions. The
Northern Insurance
court abrogated the decision
isxNew
Castle, concluding that under Pennsylvania law an exception for “sudden and accidental” events applies only to events which are abrupt and last a short time.
Northern
Ins.,
¶15 We find persuasive American West’s argument that the very use of the two words “sudden” and “accidental” reveals a clear intent to define them to state two separate requirements, so that “sudden” means more than “unexpected.” This is consistent with Montana statutory law.
See
§ 28-3-202, MCA: “The whole of a contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other.” We hold that in the context of the phrase “sudden and accidental,” the word “sudden,” even if it includes
the concept of unexpectedness, also encompasses a temporal element, because unexpectedness is already expressed by the word “accidental.” ¶16 The Sokoloskis аdmitted that they burned the candles over a period of four to five weeks and that they were aware the
While time is relative and a geologist might speak of sudden events occurring over hundreds or even thousands of years and an astrophysicist may speak in terms of millions of years, most people and institutions measure time in much more finite terms. So must the courts. In the context of the coveragе of smoke damage by a homeowner’s insurance policy, the Court determines that “sudden” connotes a sense of immediacy, which is measured in seconds, minutes and might bе stretched to hours, but not weeks. Therefore, the Court rules the gradual accumulation of soot and smoke over a 4-5 week period is not “sudden and accidentаl” for purposes of policy coverage.
We agree with the District Court. Because we determine that the smoke and soot damage was not sudden, we neеd not address whether this damage met the additional requirement of also being accidental.
¶17 Where the clear language of an insurance contract exрressly excludes coverage, summary judgment on the issue of policy applicability is proper. We hold that American West is entitled to summary judgment that the smoke and soot damage to the Sokoloskis’ home and personal property is not covered under their American West homeowners’ insurance. We therefore affirm the judgment of the District Court.