Hocker Oil Company owned a number of gas stations which, through the Barker-Phillips Insurance Agency, were insured by a Ranger Insurance Company Commercial Package Policy. On January 13, 1988, the insurance agency sent a loss notice to Ranger to report that a large gas spill had occurred at the company's Ironton, Missouri station. A day before the notice was sent, a drain plug on an underground storage tank at the Ironton, Missouri gas station failed and about 2,000 gallons of gas were released into the ground. The gas spread to contaminate the property belonging to the station's neighbors, Edgar and Norma Bay.

About a week after the loss notice was sent, Ranger Insurance contacted Hocker and denied the claim. The denial was based upon an endorsement to their insurance policy which excluded losses involving the escape or release of pollutants. Hocker responded that the exclusion was inapplicable. In its opinion, gas was their product and not a pollutant. Amid Hocker and Ranger disputing the definition of pollution, the Bays (whose land was saturated by gas) sued Hocker. Hocker, in exchange for receiving title to the Bay's property, settled with the Bays for $95,000. Hocker then asked that the settlement and accompanying defense costs be reimbursed by Ranger. After this request was denied, Hocker filed a suit alleging (among other charges) that Ranger breached the insurance contract and unreasonably refused to pay a claim based upon the obligation created by the insurance policy. Ranger filed for a summary judgment. A trial court made a partial summary judgment. It ruled in Ranger's favor on the count of refusing to pay, but also granted Hocker's request, finding that coverage did apply to the release of gas.

In the trial court's view, since gas was not explicitly listed as a pollutant, it appeared to be a reasonable expectation for a gas station operation to consider the release of its product (gas) as a covered event. Ranger appealed. While the appellate court reviewed a total of five counts, the most pertinent decision was that the higher court agreed with the lower court decision that the policy language was ambiguous regarding the status of gas as a pollutant. Therefore, it agreed with the trial court finding that the gas spill should be covered.

Hocker Oil Company, Respondent/Appellant v. Barker-Phillips-Jackson, Inc. Defendant and Ranger Insurance Company, Appellant/Respondent, MOCTAPP. Nos. 22552 & 22553 Filed June 23, 1999, Affirmed. Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District Website, http://www.osco.state.mo.su/ (21, February 2000)