Debra Sutton and Tom Walton prevailed on summary judgment in an action brought by a contractor holding an assignment from the insured homeowner. The Court applied the pollution exclusion in an all-risk homeowner’s policy, finding abatement expense was not covered even if abatement was necessary due to a covered loss. The Court determined the efficient proximate cause doctrine was inapplicable as it was disclaimed through clear contractual language. The pollution exclusion applied regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. The Ordinance, Law, or Regulation endorsement also contained an exclusion for pollution damage or clean up expense which unambiguously applied to exclude coverage for pollution abatement, even if required by state statute. Finally, a state statutory mandate requiring additional homeowner insurance coverage for costs of compliance with building laws or ordinances does not prohibit exclusion of coverage for pollutant damage or abatement expense. The Court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, denied the contractor’s cross motion for summary judgment, and dismissed all claims against the carrier.