In Breshears, the court held that the interpretation offered by the plaintiff was "unreasonable because of the clear pollution exclusion provisions for property damage stated within the other coverage that plaintiff held in its policy with Federated."
Summary of this case from Harrow Products, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.No. 93-15252.
October 17, 1994.
Appeal from the E.D.Cal., 832 F.Supp. 288.
AFFIRMED AND REVERSED.
In Breshears, the court held that the interpretation offered by the plaintiff was "unreasonable because of the clear pollution exclusion provisions for property damage stated within the other coverage that plaintiff held in its policy with Federated."
Summary of this case from Harrow Products, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.Full title:W.H. Breshears, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Date published: Oct 17, 1994
We are persuaded that the Property Damage provision in Coverage A was clearly the only provision intended by…
Patel v. Northfield Ins. Co."A wrongful entry takes place when someone other than the landlord claims a possessory interest in the room…