 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Children's Friend and Service12/1/2005
red's law enforcement duties." Id. at 268. The court concluded that: the language of the occurrence clause herein ascribes no temporal relevance to the causative event preceding the covered injury, but rather premises coverage exclusively upon the sustaining of specified injuries during the policy period. . . .
s one commentator has stated in discussing a similar provision, " policy will not depend upon the causative event of occurrence but will be based upon injuries or damages which result from such an event and which happened during the policy period. It will not be material whether the causative event happened during or before the policy period." Willard J. Obrist, The New Comprehensive General Liability Insurance Policy: A Coverage Analysis 6 (1966). See also Appalachian Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 676 F.2d 56, 61-62 (3d Cir. 1982); Bartholomew v. Appalachian Ins. Co. of N. Am., 502 F. Supp 246, 252 (D.R.I. 1980); Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Squibb & Sons, 406 N.Y.S.2d 658 (N.Y. Spec. Term 1978); Deodato v. Hartford Ins. Co., 363 A.2d 361 (N.J. Super. 1976); Acorn Ponds Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 105 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984); Richard C. Tinney, Event as Occurring Within Period of Coverage of "Occurrence" and "Discovery" or "Claims Made" Liability Policies, 37 A.L.R.4th 382 (1985). We note, moreover, that there is nothing in the policy which requires, as a prerequisite to ascertaining whether there is coverage, that the injury resulting from a causative event be reduced to a single or fixed occurrence in time. Nor does the policy distinguish, in terms of coverage, between compensable injuries which are continuous in nature and those whose occurrence is discrete and noncontinuous or require that a personal injury take place in its entirety during the policy period. These omissions are particularly significant in that the policy specifically recognizes that an injury can be caused by "continuous or repeated exposure to conditions." Cf. Keene Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 667 F.2d 1034, 1049 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the operative event triggering exposure, and thus resulting in coverage under the policy, is the sustaining of a specified injury during the policy period.
Id. at 270. Travelers asks this Court to apply the analysis of the court in National Casualty in the instant case to reach the conclusion that National Union owes CFS a duty to defend.
With respect to the interpretation of the language of the insurance policies at issue, this Court finds National Union persuasive. Moreover, this Court has neither found nor have the parties made it aware of any authority-domestic or otherwise-requiring this Court to assume that the parties intended that the "occurrence" must take place within the policy period even though the plain language of the policy suggests otherwise. See, e.g., Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., No. PC 92-5248, 1999 R.I. Super. LEXIS 66 (R.I. Super. Ct. July 29, 1999). This Court, therefore, reads the National Union insurance policies according to their plain language.
The insurance policies issued by National Union to CFS are all substantially similar in this regard to the policy in National Casualty. All seven policies-including Policy No. S 996-24-75-provide coverage for "bodily injury ," sustained during the policy period, that was originally caused by an "occurrence." The policies specify only that the "bodily injury"-not necessarily the "occurrence"-must occur during the policy period.
With respect to "property damage," every policy through January 29, 1988-again, including Policy No. S 996-24-75-draws a distinction, for the purpose of coverage, between "physical injury to or destruction of property .
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|