Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiff, while working as a bulldozer operator, was accidentally sprayed with sulfuric acid. The appellant's contention that the pollution-exclusion clause in its insurance policy applies to the underlying accident is without merit. As the insurer, the appellant must demonstrate that the exclusion applies in this particular case and that it is subject to no other reasonable interpretation (see, Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co., 64 N.Y.2d 304, 311). Because the exclusion clause may be reasonably interpreted to apply only to instances of environmental pollution, we find that the court did not err in holding that the exclusion did not apply in this case. The appellant's contention that the court's interpretation of the exclusion defeated the intent and language of the contract is without merit (see, Continental Cas. Co. v. Rapid-Am. Corp., 80 N.Y.2d 640). Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.