Legal Opinion
Montana Refining Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance
District Court, D. Nevada
Decided March 20, 1996No. CV-N-92-845-ECRPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
EDWARD C. REED, Jr., District Judge.
The question is whether the “Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Exclusion” in a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy has been triggered. The answer depends on the proper construction of the exclusion, which is a matter of first impression. The exclusion is susceptible to only one reasonable construction and is therefore not ambiguous; given the undisputed facts and the terms of the exclusion, we hold that it is applicable in this case and that Montana Refining is therefore not entitled to coverage under the CGL policy.
The facts are…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Morton International, Inc. v. General Accident InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1993
- Polaroid Corp. v. the Travelers Indemnity Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993
- National Union Fire Insurance v. Reno's Executive Air, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 1984
- Pioneer Chlor Alkali Co. v. National Union Fire InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1994
- Siggelkow v. Phoenix InsuranceNevada Supreme Court · 1993
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hyde Athletic Industries, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1997
- United States v. Alliedsignal, Inc.District Court, N.D. New York · 1999
- Sunbeam Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1997
- Century Indemnity Co. v. Marine Group, LLCDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2015
- The Estate of Josiah Wheeler v. Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2023