 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Aerojet-General Corp. v. Industrial Underwriters Insurance Co.2/28/2002
s, it is reasonable to infer that some liquid reached the grass. However, unlike a spray of water from a hose onto a driveway, the liquid at Building 183 assertedly spilled from the building up onto the roof, from which it ran to the gutters, and then down the downspout. Additionally, as we have indicated, Mr. Murphy testified TCE evaporates rapidly. Thus, this situation is not comparable to Aerojet's hose analogy.
We conclude Aerojet fails to show any grounds for reversal of the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The insurers who are parties to this appeal, as set forth in our Introduction, shall recover their costs on appeal.
We concur:
NICHOLSON, J.
KOLKEY, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|