In Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp., 261 Kan. 806, 934 P.2d 65 (1997) plaintiffs' food products stored in a warehouse were contaminated with smoke and toxic substances from a hostile fire. The insurance policy's pollution exclusion eliminated coverage for "'"property damage" arising out of the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, release or escape of pollutants,'" which included "smoke" and "soot." 261 Kan. at 821. The insurance policy also contained a "hostile fire" endorsement called "Amendment of Pollution Exclusion," which provided: "'The pollution exclusion provisions do not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" caused by heat, smoke or fumes from a hostile fire.'" 261 Kan. at 821. The Supreme Court found the pollution exclusion language in the policy was ambiguous when applied to the facts and was interpreted to include coverage for damage caused by smoke from a hostile fire. 261 Kan. at 825. Americold Corp. dealt with an insurance policy which contained an amendment limiting the scope of the pollution exclusion and provisions of doubtful or conflicting meaning, which made the policy ambiguous.