With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the pollution was not “sudden or accidental” as a matter of law, despite the fact that it may have been unintended. This Court agrees with the analysis of Judge Hodges in Industrial Indemnity. Additionally, the doctrines of intra-court comity and stare decisis mandate that this Court rule in a similar fashion. As the Court in United States v. Anaya, 509 F.Supp. 289, 293 (S.D.Fla.1980) held: [Ijmplicit in our desire for uniformity is our disinclination to depart from the doctrine of intra-court comity. The well-recognized doctrine establishes a general rule that, absent unusual or exceptional circumstances, judges of coordinate jurisdictions should follow brethren judges’ rulings (citations omitted). Further, the doctrine of stare decisis mandates that like , 905 F.2d 954 (6th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); EAD Metallurgical, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur.

A: holding that there must be a temporal connection between the dates of the alleged offense and the evidence pointing to another perpetrator
B: holding that a three and onehalf month temporal proximity is insufficient to create a jury issue on causation
C: holding that circumstantial evidence may support temporal link between defendants intoxication and his driving
D: holding that the phrase sudden and accidental has a temporal component and does not describe continuous and ongoing pollution events
D.