Page:Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co.pdf/12

 (1993), instructs us that the goal of the pollution exclusion is to prevent widespread and persistent industrial polluters from obtaining insurance coverage for their industrial polluting activities.

We first look to whether the pollution exclusion is ambiguous. Appellee argues that we have held that pollution exclusions are ambiguous as a matter of law. On the other hand, Scottsdale contends whether pollution exclusions are ambiguous always depends on the context, citing ''Madison Constr. Co. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co.'', 735 A.2d 100, 106 (Penn. 1999). Arkansas law is clear on this issue without the need to resort to law from other jurisdictions. We have stated:

"Although the meaning of an ambiguity may become a question for the fact-finder if parol evidence has been admitted to resolve that ambiguity, see Minerva Enter., Inc. v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 312 Ark. 128, 851 S.W.2d 403 (1993), where the meaning of the language of a written contract does not depend on disputed extrinsic evidence, the construction and legal effect of the contract are questions of law. See Duvall v. Massachusetts Indem. & Life Ins. Co., 295 Ark. 412, 748 S.W.2d 650 (1988); Security Ins. Co. v. Owen, 252 Ark. 720, 480 S.W.2d 558 (1972)."

''Smith v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.'', 340 Ark. 335, 341, 10 S.W.3d 846, 850 (2000). We have expressly rejected the contention that "when the terms of a written contract are ambiguous, its meaning is always a question of fact." Id. at 341, 10 S.W.3d at 851.

Arkansas appellate courts have interpreted pollution exclusions similar to the present exclusion in three cases, Minerva, supra; State Auto, supra; and Anderson, supra. In each case, the court concluded that the pollution exclusion at issue before it was ambiguous.

In Minerva, the insured owned a mobile-home park, and the park's septic system backed up into a tenant's home, flooding the home with solid and liquid sewage. Minerva,