In the summer of 1994, Steven Gugenberger was involved in an accident during a fuel delivery. Gugenberger had just finished pumping fuel into a storage tank on the premises of Kent Farms, Inc. As Gugenberger attempted to disconnect the fuel hose, fuel backed up from the storage tank valve. Before things were over, he had been soaked with fuel, even swallowing and inhaling it. Gugenberger filed a claim against Kent Farms, Inc. for damages including loss of life enjoyment, disability, medical expenses, bodily injury, as well as emotional and physical distress.

Kent Farms asked to be protected by its commercial insurance policy from Zurich Insurance Company. The commercial policy included a part for farm liability that granted coverage for bodily injury arising out of accidents. The insurer denied the claim and filed for a declaratory motion to relieve it of any obligation to defend or cover the Gugenberger claim.. The insurer's position was that the policy excluded losses involving pollutants. The trial court decided that Kent Farms was owed a defense and, if necessary, coverage for the claim; the insurer appealed the decision.

The issue upon which the higher court focused was how the policy defined a pollutant. In the court's opinion, the strict reading of the policy would allow nearly any substance to be deemed a pollutant. Therefore, the exclusion was considered to be too broad. In this instance, the fuel could not be considered to be merely a toxic substance since it posed no harm when used to power farm equipment. Because the original claim was for damages that were not environmentally related, the higher court held that the trial court acted properly. The trial court's decision was affirmed.

Kent Farms Incorporated, Respondent v. Zurich Insurance Company, Appellant. WashCtApp. No. 16779-8-III. Filed December 29, 1998. CCH 1998 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 7541.