# FMC Corp. v. Plaisted & Companies

> California Court of Appeal · March 3, 1998 · 61 Cal. App. 4th 1132

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2258115

## Case

- **Full name:** FMC CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PLAISTED AND COMPANIES Et Al., Defendants and Appellants
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** March 3, 1998
- **Citations:** 61 Cal. App. 4th 1132; 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 467; 98 Daily Journal DAR 2121; 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1535; 1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 169
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Bamattre-Manoukian
- **Judges:** Bamattre-Manoukian
- **Cited by:** 55 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Disapproved on other grounds by State of Cal. v. Continental Insurance, 55 Cal. 4th 186 (2012).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 2
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2258115

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding, in a property damage case, that if an insured intends to cause some damage, the insurer can deny coverage for all damage

## Opinion text

Opinion
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.
— These eight appeals arise from a single superior court action, and address specific aspects of the duty of a general liability insurer to indemnify its insured for the cost of reimbursing government agencies and of complying with orders for investigation and remediation of toxic contamination to soil, surface water, and groundwater beneath the surface of the soil.
The general liability insurance policies, issued by London insurers, are of the type known in American insurance practice as comprehensive or commercial general liability (or CGL) policies. The policies contain indemnification provisions similar to those of standard form CGL policies but omit the explicit duty-to-defend provisions commonly included in CGL policies. The policies’ indemnification provisions require, in pertinent part and subject to many qualifications, that the insurer indemnify the insured for all sums the insured shall be obligated to pay by reason of liability for property damage as defined. In a writ proceeding arising out of this action the Supreme Court has established as general propositions, and insofar as applicable to these policies, that contamination of the environment is property damage and, in essence, that amounts the insured is required to pay to reimburse government agencies and to comply with government orders under statutes such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) ( 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.) and similar statutes, once hazardous wastes have been released, are sums the insured is obligated to pay by reason of liability for property damage.
(AIU Ins. Co.
v.
Superior Court
(1990) 51 Cal.3d 807, 824-843 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 820 , 799 P.2d 1253 ].) These appeals call upon us to resolve additional coverage issues, as well as procedural and evidentiary questions which arose in the course of trial.
FMC Corporation, a diversified manufacturer of equipment and chemical compounds, acknowledges that over a period of many years its commercial activities, and the activities of others at sites for which FMC was or became responsible under environmental laws, caused toxic contamination to soil and groundwater at and near many sites throughout the country. Beginning as early as 1959, FMC spent substantial sums to investigate the nature and extent of the contamination, to undertake measures of its own to remediate
*1143
the contamination, to reimburse government agencies for their remediation work, and to comply with related orders of state and federal agencies.
Throughout the relevant period FMC had purchased and maintained extensive general liability insurance. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company provided FMC’s primary coverage to limits of $10 million. FMC also bought umbrella and excess coverage provided by a number of insurers including certain underwriters at Lloyds of London and certain London insurance companies. We shall refer to these London underwriters and insurance companies, including one company that engaged separate counsel in the course of the proceedings, as “the London insurers” or “the London defendants,” and to the umbrella and excess policies they issued as “the London policies.” Many other insurers were involved in the proceedings below, but of all of FMC’s insurers only the London defendants are now before this court. Exhaustion of FMC’s primary coverage (cf.
Community Redevelopment Agency
v.
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
(1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 329, 337-340 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 755 ]) is not an issue on these appeals.
Early in November 1987, FMC for the first time formally demanded that the London defendants investigate, defend and indemnify FMC with respect to toxic contamination at specified sites. Eleven days later FMC brought this action, against Liberty Mutual, the London defendants and many other insurers, for a declaration of rights as against all the insurers and for damages as against Liberty Mutual. Over a period of nearly 10 years, many of the sites for which, and many of the insurers against which, FMC had claimed coverage were removed from the action by pretrial order, voluntary dismissal, or stipulated disposition. In 1988, a few months before he was appointed to this court, the action was assigned to the Honorable Eugene M. Premo for all purposes, and he continued as single-assignment judge in the action until the spring of 1993, shortly before trial began. Justice Premo has taken no part in the consideration or decision of the issues on this appeal.
Beginning in 1993, a total of fifty-seven sites were assigned for trial in eight groups, with eight separate juries empaneled to hear factual issues and render special verdicts at a series of eight separate trial phases to which we shall refer (as the court and counsel did in the trial court) as “trials.” Of the 57 sites 4 did not involve the London defendants, and of the remaining 53 more than half were removed from jury consideration by dismissal, stipulation, or court order in the course of pretrial and trial proceedings. Thus, for example, of the six sites assigned to the first trial, two were dismissed by FMC before trial, one was dismissed by stipulation among the parties, one did not involve the London defendants, and only the remaining two went to
*1144
special verdicts and judgment with respect to the London defendants. And although all of the six sites assigned to the second trial went to judgment as to the London defendants, as to one of the sites the judgment was based on a summary adjudication order and as to another it was based on the parties’ stipulation. By the time the last trial Was concluded, in early 1997, a total of 35 sites had gone to judgment with respect to the London defendants, 22 of them on the basis of special verdicts. By this time only the London insurers remained as defendants.
Following each of the eight separate trials the trial court entered a separate, detailed recitation of the proceedings had, findings made, and conclusions reached at that trial. Each of these eight recitations was denominated a “judgment.” Neither FMC nor the London defendants were fully satisfied with any of these eight “judgments”: FMC appealed, and the London defendants cross-appealed, from each of them. This court concluded that the interests of justice would best be served by considering the eight appeals together.
Three issues lend themselves to summary disposition:
(1)
Appealability.
The London defendants initially took the position that none of the individual “judgments,” viewed in isolation, could be deemed a single
final
judgment disposing of all issues or be brought within an exception to the one final judgment rule, and therefore that none of the individual “judgments” was separately appealable. (Cf.
Morehart
v.
County of Santa Barbara
(1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 736-744 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 804 , 872 P.2d 143 ].) This court’s decision to consider the appeals from the eight separate “judgments” together effectively moots the appealability issue: We shall treat the eight “judgments” heretofore entered collectively, as a single judgment disposing of all issues, and the eight appeals as a single collective appeal from that single judgment. For convenience we shall continue to use the terms “judgment” and “judgments,” in quotation marks, to refer to the trial court’s eight separate recitations.
(2)
Instructions on late-notice defense.
As to each of the two sites that reached the jury at the first trial — the Fresno site in California and the Conservation Chemical site in Kansas — the London defendants asserted as a defense that FMC had not given them the notice required by the London policies within a reasonable time. The trial court instructed the jury that, to sustain the defense, the London defendants would be required to prove they had been prejudiced by the delay. In this court FMC contends that in preinstructions the trial court improperly authorized the jury to consider prejudice to the London defendants in defending FMC’s
coverage action,
*1145
arguing that the law permits a late-notice defense only where the insurer can show it was prejudiced in asserting a defense to the
underlying claim against
the insured. But at the first trial the jury explicitly found that FMC had
not
been late in giving notice, and the point has not been raised as to any subsequent trial. Because FMC was not aggrieved by the preinstruction of which it complains, we need not reach the issue in order to dispose of FMC’s appeal. We respectfully decline FMC’s request that we nevertheless discuss the issue, essentially in the abstract, against the possibility it will recur in future proceedings.
(3)
Standing to raise other issues.
In their respondents’ brief on FMC’s first appeal the London defendants asserted that FMC lacked standing, by reason of jury findings favorable to FMC, to raise certain issues in addition to the late-notice preinstruction. It appears that each of these additional issues was subsequently raised, in one or more of the ensuing appeals, in circumstances in which FMC was in the requisite sense aggrieved and therefore had standing to raise the issues. Thus the additional issues are properly before us.
Coverage Issues
The Pollution Exclusions
The London defendants first provided umbrella and excess general liability coverage to FMC as of August 5, 1964, and continued to provide various coverages until 1985, but effective October 1, 1970, the London defendants incorporated into their FMC policies provisions that excluded coverage for liabilities for various kinds of releases of pollutants. For the first few years after 1970 the pollution exclusions were subject to an exception if (as worded in the London policies) “such . . . release ... is sudden and accidental” or if (in another London form) “such . . . pollution . . . is caused by a sudden, unintended and unexpected happening . . . .” Most of FMC’s claims were based on gradual releases of contaminants. Unless FMC could nevertheless invoke the exception, its coverage for environmental contamination liabilities under the London policies would be limited, for purposes relevant to these appeals, to the period from August 5, 1964, to October 1, 1970. To identify the coverage periods with which we must be concerned, we turn first to the construction to be given the exception to the London policies’ pollution exclusions.
To invoke the exception with respect to gradual releases, FMC needed to persuade the London defendants, or the trial court, that the word “sudden,” as used in each form of the exception, did not necessarily mean “abrupt” or otherwise evoke a temporal connotation. To this end FMC argued that the word was defined, was understood, and had been determined by several courts, to mean “unexpected” as an alternative to “abrupt.”
*1146
After consideration of FMC’s arguments and extrinsic evidence, the trial court concluded by pretrial ruling that “sudden” meant “abrupt — in a temporal sense — and was not a synonym for unexpected and unintended.” This pretrial ruling was adhered to throughout the trial proceedings.
The trial court’s conclusion was based in part on
Shell Oil Co.
v.
Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co.
(1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 715, 752-756 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 815 ], and is also supported by
ACL Technologies, Inc.
v.
Northbrook Property & Casualty Ins. Co.
(1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1773, 1779-1794 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 206 ]. Although the issue has produced division among courts nationwide, no reported California appellate decision has contradicted the holdings of
Shell
and
ACL
that in the relevant context the word “sudden” means, at least, “abrupt,” and thus does not apply to gradual releases of pollutants no matter how unexpected.
We agree with
Shell
and
ACL,
and will not expand the literature by attempting to add to their careful analyses of the issue. FMC argues that neither
Shell
nor
ACL
“analyzed the drafting and regulatory history that is so critical to our position,” and that in this respect the
Shell
and
ACL
courts disregarded the rule of
Pacific Gas & E. Co.
v.
G. W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co.
(1968) 69 Cal.2d 33 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 561 , 442 P.2d 641 , 40 A.L.R.3d 1373 ]
(PG&E)
that “[t]he test of admissibility of extrinsic evidence to explain the meaning of a written instrument is not whether it appears to the court to be plain and unambiguous on its face, but whether the offered evidence is relevant to prove a meaning to which the language of the instrument is reasonably susceptible.” ( 69 Cal.2d at p. 37 .)
ACL
considered and rejected similar contentions. Again, we agree with, and will not seek to add to, ACL’s analysis.
From our conclusion that “sudden” means, at least, “abrupt,” it follows that FMC’s coverage under the London policies for any discharge or release of pollutants that could
not
be shown to be abrupt would be limited to policy periods between August 5, 1964 (when the London companies first provided coverage) and October 1, 1970 (the effective date of the pollution exclusions). For the purpose of the remaining coverage issues we shall focus upon that period.
The 1964-1970 London Policies
Characterization of an insurance policy as a “general liability” policy connotes neither unlimited coverage nor particular coverages. The term is more realistically viewed as a means of distinguishing policies which afford relatively broad coverages from those (such as directors and officers policies) which are explicitly limited to specifically defined areas of liability. (Cf.
Fresno Economy Import Used Cars, Inc.
v.
United States Fid. & Guar.
*1147
Co.
(1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 272, 279-280 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 681 ]; cf. also 11 Couch on Insurance (2d ed. 1982) Risks and Coverages, § 44:264, pp. 410-411.) It is invariably necessary to consult the language of any particular general liability policy to determine what coverages it affords.
Between August 5, 1964, and October 1, 1970, the London companies provided a total of eight general liability policies to FMC, of which two were of particular significance to the coverage issues before us. Policy No. K 79446 was in effect, with periodic modifications, from August 5, 1964, to October 1, 1969, and was in practical effect replaced by policy No. CX2062 for the period from October 1, 1969, to October 1, 1970. These two policies, each captioned as an “umbrella policy,” undertook to provide coverage immediately above and in some respects supplemental to Liberty Mutual’s primary general liability coverage. The remaining six policies provided layers of excess coverage above policy Nos. K 79446 and CX2062, and in relevant respects “followed form” with — which in insurance parlance meant their terms conformed to those of (cf., e.g.,
Wells Fargo Bank
v.
California Ins. Guarantee Assn.
(1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 936, 940 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 ];
Coca Cola Bottling Co.
v.
Columbia Casualty Ins. Co.
(1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1182 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 643 ]) — the umbrella policies.
The pertinent basic provisions of policy Nos. K 79446 and CX2062 were closely similar.
The policies provided that the London insurers
K 79446
“agree ... to indemnify the Assured for all sums which the Assured shall be obligated to pay by reason of the liability [imposed by law or assumed by agreement] for damages, direct or consequential and expenses, all as more fully defined by the term ‘ultimate net loss’ on account of:— . . . Property Damage . . . caused by or arising out of each occurrence happening anywhere in the world.”
CX2062
“agree ... to indemnify the Assured for all sums which the Assured shall be obligated to pay by reason of the liability [imposed by law or assumed by agreement] for damages, direct or consequential and expenses, all as more fully defined by the term ‘ultimate net loss’ on account of:— . . . Property Damage . . . caused by or arising out of each occurrence.”
These provisions were made subject to the following “Limit of Liability”:
*1148
K 79446
“Underwriters hereon shall only be liable for the ultimate net loss the excess of either
“(a) the limits of the underlying insurances as set out in the attached schedule in respect of each occurrence covered by said underlying insurances,
“or (b) $25,000 ultimate net loss in respect of each occurrence not covered by said underlying insurances,
“(hereinafter called the ‘underlying limits’):
“and then only up to [specified policy limits].”
CX2062
“Underwriters hereon shall only be liable for the ultimate net loss the excess of the greater of “(a) the limits of the underlying insurances as set out in the attached schedule and the amount collectible by the Assured under any other underlying insurance, in respect of each occurrence covered by said underlying insurances,
“o[r] (b) $100,000 ultimate net loss in respect of each occurrence
“(hereinafter called the ‘underlying limits’):
“and then only up to [specified policy limits].”
The policies defined “Property Damage” as
K 79446
“loss of or direct damage to or destruction of tangible property (other than property owned by the Named Assured).”
CX2062
“loss of or direct damage to or destruction of tangible property (other than property owned by the Named Assured).”
Throughout these proceedings the trial court and counsel have referred to property other than that owned by FMC as “third party property,” and to damage to such property as “third party property damage”; occasionally they have referred to FMC’s property as “owned property” and to damage to FMC’s property as “first party property damage.” We shall adopt this terminology. Under California law groundwater — which we broadly define as water beneath the surface of the soil — is publicly owned, and thus California groundwater would be third party property from FMC’s perspective.
(AIU Ins. Co.
v.
Superior Court, supra,
51 Cal.3d at p. 817 fn. 6; cf. Wat. Code, § 102.)
*1149
The policies defined “OCCURRENCE” as
K 79446
“an accident or a happening or event or a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which unexpectedly and unintentionally results in personal injury, property damage or advertising liability during the policy period. All such exposure to substantially the same general conditions existing at or emanating from one premises location shall be deemed one occurrence.”
CX2062
“an accident or a happening or event or a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which unexpectedly and unintentionally results in personal injury, property damage or advertising liability during the policy period. All such exposure to substantially the same general conditions existing at or emanating from one premises location shall be deemed one occurrence.”
The policies defined “Ultimate Net Loss” as
K 79446
“the total sum which the Assured, or any company as his insurer, or both, become obligated to pay by reason of personal injury, property damage or advertising liability claims, either through adjudication or compromise, and shall also include hospital, medical and funeral charges and all sums paid as salaries, wages, compensation, fees, charges and law costs, premiums on attachment or appeal bonds, interest, expenses for doctors, lawyers, nurses and investigators and other persons, and for litigation, settlement, adjustment and investigation of claims and suits which are paid as a consequence of any occurrence covered hereunder, excluding only the salaries of the Assured’s or of any underlying insurer’s permanent employees.”
CX2062
“the total sum which the Assured, or any company as his insurer, or both, become obligated to pay by reason of personal injury, property damage or advertising liability claims, either through adjudication or compromise, and shall also include hospital, medical and funeral charges and all sums paid as salaries, wages, compensation, fees, charges and law costs, premiums on attachment or appeal bonds, interest, expenses for doctors, lawyers, nurses and ' investigators and other persons, and for litigation, settlement, adjustment and investigation of claims and suits which are paid as a consequence of any occurrence covered hereunder, excluding only the salaries of the Assured’s or of any underlying insurer’s permanent employees.”
*1150
Insured Not Involved Until After Policy Period
By definition, coverage under an “occurrence” liability insurance policy such as those before us requires that an event or events relevant to coverage have
occurred during
the policy period. (Cf. A.
C. Label Co.
v.
Transamerica Ins. Co.
(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1192 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 ].) This concept is encapsulated in the term “trigger of coverage” which the Supreme Court, in
Montrose Chemical Corp.
v.
Admiral Ins. Co.
(1995) 10 Cal.4th 645 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 , 913 P.2d 878 ]
(Montrose II),
defined as “a term of convenience used to describe that which, under the specific terms of [a liability] insurance policy, must happen in the policy period in order for the
potential
of coverage [relevant to the duty-to-defend issues involved in
Montrose
77] to arise. The issue is largely one of timing — what must take place
within the policy’s effective dates
for the potential of coverage to be ‘triggered’? Whether coverage is ultimately established in any given case may depend on the consideration of many additional factors . . . .” ( 10 Cal.4th at p. 655, fn. 2 ; cf.
id.
at p. 673 et seq.;
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
v.
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
(1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1, 39 [ 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 690 ].) But “unless coverage has been triggered under these occurrence policies within the policy period, there is no coverage once the policy period has ended. [Citation.]”
(Cooper Companies
v.
Transcontinental Ins. Co.
(1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1107 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 508 ]; A.
C. Label Co.
v.
Transamerica Ins. Co., supra,
48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1194 .)
Many cases have generalized that under an occurrence-based general liability policy it is the injury or harm that triggers coverage. (Cf.
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
v.
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra,
45 Cal.App.4th at pp. 39-40, and cases and secondary authorities cited.) In
Montrose II
the Supreme Court identified four varying “trigger theories” applied by courts under such policies (10 Cal.4th at pp. 674-676) and held that, in circumstances analogous to those of this case, liability under such policies for property damage which is “continuous or progressively deteriorating throughout successive policy periods” will be covered by “all policies in effect during those periods,” under a theory which
Montrose II
labeled “[t]he continuous injury (or multiple) trigger.”
(id.
at p. 675.)
It appears to be undisputed for purposes of this appeal that the gradual release of pollutants which underlay most of FMC’s coverage claims invoked
Montrose
77’s continuous injury trigger, and that coverage under the London policies was triggered by any property damage in any policy period at a site with which FMC had had some involvement relevant to liability under CERCLA or comparable statutes before or during that policy period.
But the parties sharply disagree as to whether coverage was triggered under the London policies for property damage for which (under CERCLA
*1151
or comparable state statutes) FMC was liable even though FMC had had no involvement with the site until
after
the last relevant policy period ended on October 1, 1970.
A peculiarity of CERCLA and comparable statutes is that an entity may become liable (sometimes simply as the current owner of a site) for cleanup and remediation costs for property damage which occurred before, and sometimes long before, the entity had any involvement whatsoever. (Cf. CERCLA § 107(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (a);
U.S.
v.
Shell Oil Co.
(C.D.Cal. 1993) 841 F.Supp. 962, 968 .) FMC found itself in this situation with respect to sites of two general kinds, labeled in motion paperwork as “category A” and “category B.” “Category A” included sites at which FMC had no involvement, either directly or vicariously through a predecessor entity, until after October 1, 1970; “category B” included sites in which FMC had not been involved, but a predecessor entity (subsequently acquired by FMC) had been involved, before October 1, 1970.
No “category A” or “category B” sites were involved in the first trial. Shortly after the first trial the London defendants sought a ruling that they would not be required to provide coverage for injury for which FMC was liable under CERCLA at sites where FMC’s involvement began after October 1, 1970. FMC responded that under the literal language of the policies’ “occurrence” definition it would be entitled to indemnity for its
liability
for any
property damage
within a covered policy period, whether or not FMC had
caused
the property damage or had otherwise been involved during the policy period. The trial court agreed with FMC, concluding that “there is no coverage requirement that the damage be caused by the named insured” and denying the London defendants’ motion. One “category A” site, Andover, in Minnesota, was assigned to the second trial, and the London defendants were found to have coverage, and to be obliged to indemnify FMC for its essentially retroactive CERCLA liability, for certain of their policy periods.
A “category B” site, Bermet, in South Carolina, was assigned to the fourth trial. The London defendants again moved for a ruling that they had no coverage, and this time the trial court, apparently influenced by the intervening appellate opinion in
Cooper Companies
v.
Transcontinental Ins. Co., supra,
31 Cal.App.4th 1094 , granted the London defendants’ motion, holding that there was no coverage for the Bermet site.
Three “category A” sites — Ekotek, in Utah, Delaware Sand & Gravel, in Delaware, and Global Landfill, in New Jersey — were assigned to the seventh trial, and again the London defendants made a pretrial motion for a ruling
*1152
that there was no coverage, citing
Cooper Companies
and
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
v.
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra,
45 Cal.App.4th 1 . In
Armstrong World Industries,
an asbestos products liability case, the Court of Appeal among other things construed language from
Montrose II
“to mean that exposure to hazardous conditions
after
the policy period will not trigger coverage” ( 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 61, fn. 24 ), and concluded that “[a]n insurer has no liability if its policy expired before the claimant was exposed to the policyholder’s product.”
(Id.
at p. 62.) The London defendants’ position was also supported by this appellate district’s opinion in A.
C. Label Co.
v.
Transamerica Ins. Co., supra,
48 Cal.App.4th 1188 , a groundwater contamination case on “category B” facts, which was not yet final at the time the London defendants’ motion was heard.
FMC sought to distinguish
Cooper Companies
and A. C.
Label,
but conceded that, although it disagreed with
Armstrong World Industries,
the trial court would be obliged under
Armstrong World Industries
to dismiss FMC’s coverage claims as to Ekotek, Delaware Sand & Gravel, and Global Landfill. The trial court granted the London defendants’ motion on the basis both of
Armstrong World Industries
and of the court’s perception that FMC might not have had an “insurable interest,” as required and defined in Insurance Code section 280 and following sections, in these sites.
FMC made similar concessions, and the trial court ruled similarly, as to four “category A” sites — J.I.S. Landfill, Kin-Buc Landfill, and Higgins Farm, in New Jersey, and Mountaineer Refinery, in Wyoming — assigned to the eighth trial.
On their first cross-appeal the London defendants challenge the trial court’s ruling as to the Andover site. By its fourth, seventh and eighth appeals FMC, having reconsidered the applicability of
Armstrong World Industries,
challenges the rulings denying coverage as to the “category A” and “category B” sites assigned to those trials.
The crux of FMC’s argument is that the London policies’ definition of an “occurrence” was unambiguous as to what must occur during a policy period, requiring in pertinent part only unexpected or unintended “property damage” without reference to any requirement that FMC have caused, or otherwise have been contemporaneously liable for, the “property damage,” and that it is undisputed that there was in fact “property damage” sufficient to constitute a continuous injury trigger under
Montrose II.
The London defendants’ primary position is that this case is controlled by A.
C. Label,
in which a majority of this court’s panel held, on “category B”
*1153
facts and under general liability policy language similar in substance to that of the London policies, that “[t]he coverage provided by [the general liability] policy was not triggered during the policy period because plaintiffs had no connection to or nexus with the damage caused by contamination that occurred on the subsequently acquired property during the policy period.” ( 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1194 .)
FMC respectfully suggests that this court decided
A. C. Label
incorrectly. In essence FMC agrees with the dissent in A.
C. Label
that “the clauses are the same standard clauses that were at issue in
Montrose
[//].... The court therein settled the meaning of the clauses: ‘We find no ambiguity in this language; it clearly and explicitly provides that the occurrence of bodily injury or property damage during the policy period is the operative event that triggers coverage.’ ([10 Cal.4th] at p. 668.) [*[[]... Since there is no question that there was an occurrence during the policy period in this case, the policy affords plaintiff coverage.” (A.
C. Label Co.
v.
Transamerica Ins. Co., supra,
48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1195-1196 (dis. opn. of Premo, Acting P. J.).)
FMC argues that A.
C. Label
was flawed by its asserted failure to acknowledge that “[t]he Supreme Court has held that statutorily created, retroactive, strict liability is covered under general liability policies. As long as the necessary triggering event
(i.e.,
injury or damage) takes place during the policy period and the insured is held liable for that injury or damage, coverage exists under occurrence-based CGL policies.”
FMC’s reference is to the following footnote, in the Supreme Court’s opinion in
AIU Ins. Co.
v.
Superior Court, supra,
51 Cal.3d 807 , in support of a text generalization that “. . . we generally interpret the coverage clauses of insurance policies broadly, protecting the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured”: “Although our focus is the expectations of the insured at the time the policy is made, this emphasis does not preclude coverage of forms of liability — such as those at issue here — created after the formation of the policy. Because the policies in question here are ‘comprehensive,’ it was within the insured’s reasonable expectation that new types of statutory liability would be covered, as long as they were within the ambit of the language used in the coverage provision. As one court has pointed out, failure to cover new liabilities would create a ‘discordant result, for it would mean that where courts enlarge liability during the effective period of a liability policy, an insured who contracted for complete coverage of a possible risk would be left without coverage because the scope of the risk had been enlarged by decisional law.’ [Citation.] The same is true when legislatures create entirely new forms of liability. The sole relevant inquiry
*1154
in
determining whether such types of liability are covered is whether, in view of the reasonable expectations of the insured, policy language can be interpreted to embrace the liability that may accrue under new statutory schemes.” ( 51 Cal.3d at p. 822, fn. 8 ; cf. also
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
v.
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra,
45 Cal.App.4th at p. 59, fn. 23 ;
Cooper Companies
v.
Transcontinental Ins. Co., supra,
31 Cal.App.4th at p. 1107 , in. 10;
Travelers Ins. Co.
v.
Industrial Indem. Co. (1971) 18
Cal.App.3d 628, 632 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 191 ];
Pacific Indemnity Co.
v.
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.
(1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 346, 352 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 667 ].)
We understand the Supreme Court to have referred to the well-established rule that liability insurance coverage will extend to liabilities created or enlarged by post-policy period changes in applicable
law.
We do not understand the parties to disagree with this principle, which is applicable in this case inasmuch as CERCLA (for example) was not enacted until 1980, 10 years after the last London policy period relevant to the issues before us. In no case would, or could, FMC have been declared liable under CERCLA
at the time damage occurred within the policy period,
because at that time CERCLA did not exist. FMC subsequently
became
liable, by virtue of CERCLA, for damage which had occurred within policy periods several years before.
But in every instance, other than at Andover, in which the trial court found coverage under the London policies, it was also true that every
factual
predicate for CERCLA liability, including a nexus between FMC and the damage or the site, could be shown to have existed
before or during the policy period.
We consider such a showing of a contemporaneous factual predicate essential to the kind of coverage for statutorily expanded risk to which ALU’s footnote referred. For this reason we shall conclude, as we concluded in A.
C. Label,
that coverage for liability under subsequently enacted statutes was not triggered in policy periods in which a sufficient factual nexus could not be shown.
Our conclusion that a complete factual predicate for a liability subsequently imposed by law must exist during the policy period is based in our perception that while it is indeed appropriate to require that an insurer that writes, and accepts a substantial premium for, general liability insurance assume the risk of expansion in
legal theories
of liability applicable to facts which occurred in or before the policy period, it is neither reasonable nor consonant with the terms of the general liability policies before us to require such insurers to cover liabilities based on facts which did not occur until
*1155
after the policy period. A general liability insurer can realistically be said to be in the business of understanding and taking into account the legislative and judicial dynamics that produce changes in legal theories, but cannot be required to be clairvoyant as to the infinite possible future permutations of facts, fundamental to the very existence of coverage but not in existence during the policy period, once the policy period has expired.
FMC argues that such a conclusion would essentially rewrite the policies in light of judicial concepts of fairness and justice, in violation of the Supreme Court’s recent admonition, in
Aerojet-General Corp.
v.
Transport Indemnity Co.
(1997) 17 Cal.4th 38 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 118 , 948 P.2d 909 ], that the insurance policies before the court in that case “provide what they provide,” and that in agreeing to the policies the parties “established what was ‘fair’ and ‘just’ inter se. We may not rewrite what they themselves wrote. . . . As a general matter at least, we do not add to, take away from, or otherwise modify a contract for ‘public policy considerations.’ ” ( 17 Cal.4th at p. 75 .)
We disagree with FMC’s restrictive reading of the Supreme Court’s language in
Aerojet. Aerojet
itself furnishes vivid evidence that its admonition that insurance policies “provide what they provide” is applicable only “[a]s a general matter” and by no means inflexibly. In
Buss
v.
Superior Court
(1997) 16 Cal.4th 35 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 939 P.2d 766 ], the Supreme Court had revalidated the duty of an insurer whose policy contains a duty to defend to undertake the entire defense of a “mixed” action involving both potentially covered claims and claims which were not potentially covered. The Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that “[w]e cannot justify the insurer’s duty to defend the entire ‘mixed’ action contractually, as an obligation arising out of the policy, and have never even attempted to do so. . . . ffl] That being said, we can, and do, justify the insurer’s duty to defend the entire ‘mixed’ action prophylactically, as an obligation imposed by law in support of the policy.” (16 Cal.4th at pp. 48-49, fn. omitted.) In
Aerojet
the Supreme Court reaffirmed both this rule and its rationale. Patently the Supreme Court did not regard the duty to defend “mixed” actions as one to which policies should be deemed to “provide what they provide.”
We believe the issue before us is perhaps comparable in significance to that of the duty to defend “mixed” actions. Certainly the problem goes beyond mere generalization as to what might be considered “fair” or “just.” It is fundamental to the concept of liability insurance. We are satisfied that we have reached a valid resolution.
The London defendants also reassert the trial court’s apparent conclusion that, for want of a sufficient nexus, FMC did not have the “insurable
*1156
interest” required by Insurance Code section 280 and following sections in the sites in “category A” and “category B.” We have concerns about the relevance of
property
interests to the concept of insurable interest in the context of
liability
insurance (cf., e.g.,
Osborne
v.
Security Ins. Co.
(1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 201, 205 [ 318 P.2d 94 ];
Davis
v.
California Highway Indem. Exch.
(1931) 118 CaLApp. 403, 406 [ 5 P.2d 447 ]), but in light of the conclusion we have stated we need not resolve the question in this action.
Our conclusion requires that the judgment be modified to reflect no coverage under the London policies, for any of their policy periods, at the Andover, Minnesota site.
“Unexpectedly”
Under the London policies’ definition of “occurrence,” FMC could establish coverage only if the property damage for which it was liable had occurred “unexpectedly and unintentionally.” The parties appear to have agreed, and early in the proceedings the trial court ruled, that “unintentionally” was not in issue. But the question whether environmental harm had in any particular instance been
unexpected
from FMC’s standpoint pervaded the proceedings. Shortly before the first trial, the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District held that “[t]he appropriate test for ‘expected’ damage is whether the insured knew or believed its conduct was substantially certain or highly likely to result in that kind of damage.”
(Shell Oil Co.
v.
Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co., supra,
12 Cal.App.4th at p. 748 .) The trial court applied this subjective test throughout these proceedings.
1.
Burden of Proof as to “Unexpectedly”
Would FMC be required to prove that the property damage had been unexpected? Or would the insurers be required to prove that the property damage had
not
been unexpected? The trial court concluded that the burden of proving the property damage was unexpected should be borne by FMC, as the insured, and it instructed the juries accordingly at each of the eight trials.
The juries reached the “unexpectedly” issue with respect to a total of 19 sites, and concluded that the property damage had
not
been unexpected (and thus, in necessary effect, that FMC had not borne the burden assigned to it by the trial court) at 7 of these sites. On the basis of the juries’ findings, the trial court denied coverage at each of these seven sites. On appeal, FMC argues that it should not have been required to bear the burden of proof as to this issue, and that the trial court’s error manifestly prejudiced it with respect
*1157
to five of the seven sites. FMC does not raise the issue as to the Julian Street site involved in the third trial or the Mouat site in the fifth trial.
FMC argues, essentially in the alternative, (a) that the “unexpectedly and unintentionally” language of the policies’ “occurrence” definition was in essence an
exclusion
from coverage as to which, under the general rule, the insurer should bear the burden of proof, and (b) that to place the burden on FMC would be to require FMC to implicate itself, in violation of Evidence Code section 520, in the commission of “wrongdoing.” We disagree with both branches of FMC’s argument and shall validate the trial court’s ruling and instructions.
a.
Exclusion From Coverage
Each of the London umbrella policies, like standard form CGL policies, contained an insuring agreement followed by separately stated exclusions. The Supreme Court has recently restated the approach courts must take to coverage questions under such policies: “[T]he insuring agreement . . . states the risk or risks covered by the policy, and the exclusion clauses . . . remove coverage for risks that would otherwise fall within the insuring clause. [Citation.] Before ‘even considering exclusions, a court must examine the coverage provisions to determine whether a claim falls within [the policy terms].’ [Citation.] ‘This is significant for two reasons. First, “. . . when an occurrence is clearly not included within the coverage afforded by the insuring clause, it need not also be specifically excluded.” ’ [Citation.]
“ ‘Second, although exclusions are construed narrowly and must be proven by the insurer, the burden is on the insured to bring the claim within the basic scope of coverage, and (unlike exclusions) courts will not indulge in a forced construction of the policy’s insuring clause to bring a claim within the policy’s coverage.’ [Citation.] Accordingly, the insured has the burden of showing that there has been an ‘occurrence’ within the terms of the policy.”
(Waller
v.
Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc.
(1995) 11 Cal.4th 1, 16 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 370 , 900 P.2d 619 ]; cf. also
Collin
v.
American Empire Ins. Co.
(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 787, 802-803 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 391 ];
Hallmark Ins. Co.
v.
Superior Court
(1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 1014, 1017 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 638 ].)
Once the insured has borne the burden of bringing the claim within the basic scope of coverage, “[t]he burden then shifts to the insurer to prove the claim falls within an exclusion.”
(Merced Mutual Ins. Co.
v.
Mendez
(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 41, 47 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 273 ]; cf. also
Royal Globe Ins. Co.
v.
Whitaker
(1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 532, 537 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 435 ];
Executive Aviation, Inc.
v.
National Ins. Underwriters
(1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 799, 806 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 347 ].)
*1158
The London policies’ “occurrence” definition is manifestly an inseparable element of the policies’ insuring agreements, which state the London defendants’ obligations in terms (among others) of “occurrence.” On the face of the policies, and under the stated rules, the burden would be upon FMC initially to prove that its claim was based on facts which came within the policy definition of “occurrence,” including the definition’s requirement that property damage resulted “unexpectedly.”
To sustain its argument, to the contrary, that the “unexpectedly . . . results in . . . property damage” clause of the “occurrence” definition was the functional equivalent of a policy exclusion as to which the London defendants should bear the burden of proof, FMC relies primarily on
United Pacific Ins. Co.
v.
McGuire Co.
(1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1560 [ 281 Cal.Rptr. 375 ].
United Pacific
did not involve allocation of the burden of proof. The issue, raised on appeal from a summary judgment, was whether a CGL insurer owed a duty to defend a wrongful termination action under an “ ‘Extended Definition of Occurrence’ ” as “ ‘an accident, an event or a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which results, during the policy period, in
bodily injury
or
property damage
neither expected nor intended by the insured.’ ” ( 229 Cal.App.3d at p. 1563 .) Earlier cases had held, in essence, that wrongful termination could not be regarded as an “accident,” but the
United Pacific
court perceived that the word “event” “obviously embraces intentional conduct”
(id.
at p. 1565); the dispositive issue was whether the phrase “neither expected nor intended” should be construed to qualify the word “event” (so as to limit coverage to
events
that were neither expected nor intended) or, instead, the words “bodily injury or property damage” (so as to permit coverage of even intentional
conduct
so long as particular resultant
harm
was not expected or intended). Focusing on construction of the phrase “neither expected nor intended,” the
United Pacific
court said: “Since the word ‘event’ is not limited to fortuitous happenings, the phrase ‘not expected or intended’ [az'c] cannot be read as language confirming the meaning of the term; in the context of the extended definition, the phrase must be regarded as language of limitation, narrowing the coverage otherwise provided by the word ‘event.’ As a provision limiting coverage, the phrase performs precisely the same function as the common exclusion for intentional conduct. It does not matter that the phrase appears in the ‘definitions’ section of the policy rather than the ‘exclusions’ section; in either case it performs the function of an exclusion. Consequently . . .the phrase is subject to the ‘well settled principle that such exclusionary clauses should be interpreted as narrowly as possible.’ ” ( 229 Cal.App.3d at p. 1565 .)
Construing the phrase narrowly, the
United Pacific
court concluded that the phrase limited only the scope of covered
harms,
and that (inferably
*1159
because there was potential coverage for the arguably unexpected and unintended mental and emotional distress damages the discharged employee sought) the insurer had owed a duty to defend.
In our view
United Pacific’s
construction of the phrase in the policy before it, for purposes of invoking a rule of policy interpretation, does not resolve the burden of proof issue with respect to the syntactically distinguishable “occurrence” definition before us. Nor are we bound by the findings and conclusions of a federal trial judge, apparently based in part on the testimony of expert witnesses, that the phrase “neither expected no[r] intended” in a standard form CGL policy’s “occurrence” definition was an “exclusion of coverage” as to which the insurer would bear the burden under California law.
(Clemco Industries
v.
Commercial Union Ins. Co.
(N.D.Cal. 1987) 665 F.Supp. 816, 820-821 .) California courts that have chosen to address the burden of proof issue, in cases in which the issue appears not to have been directly raised, have not reached consistent results. (Compare, e.g.,
Waller
v.
Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc., supra,
11 Cal.4th at p. 20 [regarding duty to defend, “insured must show . . . neither expected nor intended”] with
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
v.
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra,
45 Cal.App.4th at p. 77 [“insurer’s burden was to prove . . . that [insured] actually did expect . . .”].) Cases from other jurisdictions are similarly divided. (Compare
Clemco Industries
v.
Commercial Union Ins. Co.,
with
Queen City Farms
v.
Central Nat. Ins. Co.
(1994) 126 Wn.2d 50 [ 882 P.2d 703 ] [burden is on insured].)
After consideration of these authorities, we adhere to our conclusion that the phrase “unexpectedly and unintentionally” is an integral part of the “occurrence” definition before us in this case, and thus is subject to the rule assigning the burden of proof of coverage to the insured. Our conclusion is reinforced by the persuasive insights of the Washington Supreme Court in
Queen City Farms
v.
Central Nat. Ins. Co.,
on this issue: “[T]he argument that the ‘unexpected or unintended’ language is exclusionary is not a particularly strong argument when deciding who has the burden of proof on this issue, because ‘virtually all the language in the Insuring Agreement of CGL policies after the insurer’s promise to “pay all sums the insured shall become legally obligated to pay . . .” qualifies or limits the scope of this promise in one way or another.’ K. Abraham,
Environmental Liability Insurance Law
140-41 (1991). [H] . . . RD Professor Abraham ■ suggests other considerations, including the notion that the burden of proof should be on the insured because the insured is ‘likely to be in possession of or have greater access to whatever information exists about its expectations or intentions . . . .’ K. Abraham, at 140. This reasoning is compelling in the case where a subjective standard is applied.” (126 Wn.2d at pp. 556-557 [882 P.2d at pp.
*1160
715-716].) These observations are germane under California law (cf. 1 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (3d ed. 1986) Burden of Proof and Presumptions, § 136, p. 119 et seq.) and to the analogous language of the London defendants’ general liability insurance policies.
b.
Evidence Code Section 520
Evidence Code section 520 provides that “[t]he party claiming that a person is guilty of crime or wrongdoing has the burden of proof on that issue.”
FMC did not invoke Evidence Code section 520 in the trial court, where the section’s application to particular circumstances might have been assessed in light of those circumstances. In this court, to bring the “unexpectedly” element of the London policies’ “occurrence” definition within section 520, FMC is obliged to establish, essentially as an abstract generalization, that proof that property damage caused by its releases of toxic contaminants was not unexpected from its standpoint would be tantamount to proof that it was “guilty of crime or wrongdoing.”
For this purpose FMC relies on the subjective test for “expected” damage enunciated in
Shell
and applied for other purposes at the trials of this action: “whether the insured knew or believed its conduct was substantially certain or highly likely to result in that kind of damage.”
(Shell Oil Co.
v.
Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co., supra,
12 Cal.App.4th at p. 748 .) FMC asks us to conclude that conduct that met the
Shell
test, in the factual context of this action, would necessarily amount at least to “wrongdoing” within the meaning of Evidence Code section 520.
We cannot so conclude. The wording, history and prior judicial application of Evidence Code section 520 all support a finding that “wrongdoing” connotes an element of moral disapprobation substantially greater than that which might be implied by the
Shell
test. Thus (to take as examples two cases FMC has cited) in
Clemmer
v.
Hartford Insurance Co.
(1978) 22 Cal.3d 865, 880 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 285 , 587 P.2d 1098 ], it was deemed “consistent with . . . section 520” to require an insurer to show that its insured had acted wilfully (within the meaning of Insurance Code section 533) in shooting his employer to death, and in
Fisher
v.
Superior Court
(1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 434, 448-449 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 47 ], the Court of Appeal referred to section 520 in apparent support of its conclusion that the burden of proof as to the “good faith” of a settlement should be upon the party who asserted the settlement was
not
made in good faith, i.e., was made in bad faith. We find no comparable connotation compelled in the context of liability, under
*1161
essentially regulatory statutes, for toxic contamination by reason of acts in many instances done long before the statutes were enacted.
2.
Separate Sources of Damage
FMC occasionally perceived that it might be unable to prove that certain of the third party property damage at or attributable to a site had been unexpected. One tactical response to such a perception was to argue that such damage could be isolated from other third party property damage at or attributable to the site, and that FMC should be permitted to prove that the other damage, viewed in isolation, had been unexpected and thus to obtain coverage at least for its liability for the other damage. Under the policy language such an argument was necessarily addressed to, and phrased in terms of, the policy definition of “occurrence.”
A site might (for example) have had two sources of pollutants, each of which had contributed to groundwater contamination, and while FMC could hope to prove that it had not expected
one
of the sources to cause the damage it could not reasonably expect to prove that the damage caused by the
other
source was unexpected. If the totality of damage attributable to the two sources were considered a single occurrence, then FMC’s inability to establish the “unexpectedly” element as to one of the sources would jeopardize its prospects for coverage as to either source. If, on the other hand, FMC could establish that each source should be treated as the basis of a separate occurrence, then it might be able to show that damage was unexpected as to one source, and thus preserve coverage for its liability for damage attributable to that source, even though it could not make a similar showing as to the other source.
Under California case law, for the purpose of determining the number of occurrences under a liability insurance policy (usually as a means of calculating policy limits) “occurrence has generally been held to mean the underlying cause of the injury, rather than the injury or claim itself . . . .”
(Whittaker Corp.
v.
Allianz Underwriters, Inc.
(1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1242 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 659 ].)
The London umbrella policies addressed the determination of the number of occurrences only in the provision, appended to the “occurrence” definition, that “[a]ll such exposure to substantially the same general conditions existing at or emanating from one premises location shall be deemed one occurrence.” In standard form policies this provision has been referred to as a “one occurrence clause.” (Cf.
Endicott Johnson Corp.
v.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
(N.D.N.Y. 1996) 928 F.Supp. 176, 179 .)
*1162
Before the first trial in this action the trial court filed a written ruling that in essence made both the case law rule and the one occurrence clause applicable to these trials without undertaking to synthesize the two. The appropriate synthesis is apparent: The one occurrence clause would qualify the case law rule in any case to which the one occurrence clause would be applicable, so that more than one occurrence could be found on the basis of separately identifiable causes of property damage unless the property damage had been caused by an exposure to “substantially the same general conditions existing at or emanating from one premises location.”
In the proceedings that led to this ruling, counsel for FMC acknowledged “the general proposition that there is one occurrence per site, unless there [are] peculiar facts under this language where there would be more than one.”
One of the sites assigned to the third trial, the Green River site in Wyoming, potentially raised a problem similar to that illustrated by our example: There were at least two separately identifiable sources of contamination on the site, and the likelihood of contamination arguably was more apparent at one source than at another. The third trial jury was given a definition of “occurrence” but was neither instructed as to multiple occurrences nor given the option on the special verdict form of making separate findings as to the separate sources on the Green River site. By their questions to the court during their deliberation, in November 1995, the jurors made clear that they had focused on and were concerned by the distinctions between the two sources. The trial court responded by referring the jury to the instructions already given, but then added the one occurrence clause: “As to property damage resulting from a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, you are now further instructed that all such exposure to substantially the same general conditions existing or emanating from the Green River site shall be deemed one occurrence.” The court did not alter the special verdict form. The jury ultimately found that there had been third party property damage at the Green River site and that the damage had been unexpected, and the trial court found coverage under the London policies for the Green River site as a whole.
The multiple-source problem arose again at the Carteret site in New Jersey (assigned to the fourth trial) and at the Pocatello site in Idaho (assigned to the fifth trial), but in these instances FMC did not obtain an adjudication of coverage. On appeal FMC complains of trial court rulings which effectively denied FMC an opportunity to argue, as to the Carteret and Pocatello sites, that the jury could consider the “unexpectedly” issue separately as to sources where FMC believed it had better prospects for coverage.
*1163
a.
Carteret
At Carteret, groundwater contamination was traced to two sources on the site: a sand-lined “dewatering pit” which was identified as a source of arsenic contamination, and a concrete storage tank known as the “P-4 pit” which was identified as a source of contamination by phosphorus and phosphates. It was apparent from the evidence at the fourth trial that the jury could have concluded that FMC was more likely to have expected contamination from the dewatering pit than from the P-4 pit.
Proposed jury instructions and special verdict forms for the fourth trial had been due, under the trial court’s elaborate case management orders, on January 2, 1996, shortly after the jury questions and verdicts at the third trial. Possibly sensing how close it had come to an all-or-nothing disaster as to the Green River site, FMC submitted a proposed special verdict form that would have called for separate findings as to the dewatering pit and the P-4 pit at the Carteret site. But FMC did not at that time request any instruction on multiple occurrences, or otherwise in support of its proposal for separate verdicts for the two Carteret sources; FMC did request a general definition of “occurrence” which tracked the London policies’ definition (but without the one occurrence clause).
On February 20, 1996, after approximately four weeks of FMC’s five-week case-in-chief at the fourth trial, FMC submitted “proposed additional and revised jury instructions” which included two new requested instructions germane to the issue before us:
“Instruction No. 33” would have added the one occurrence clause to FMC’s previously requested “occurrence” definition.
“Instruction No. 33A” would have told the jury that “[mjore than one ‘occurrence’ may exist at a site for coverage purposes. The number of occurrences is determined by the number of cause(s) of the property damage. You must decide whether particular acts, practices, or activities at a particular site location are so unrelated as to support a finding of more than one occurrence at a site.”
At a hearing three days later, on February 23, the trial court questioned counsel for FMC concerning the proposed instructions: “Now we are talking about multiple occurrences, or multiple something? [5D [Counsel for FMC]: Sources, ffl]. • • • ffl] Or causes for the same injury.” Counsel told the court she was requesting the instruction “because the burden of proof being on the plaintiff, we think we need to address it on a source-by-source basis.”
*1164
It was not until March 13, after both sides had rested and shortly before summations, that counsel for FMC explicitly stated that “we believe that the exposure from the P-4 pit could be considered a different issue, and it is, in fact, a different occurrence from the exposure relating to the dewatering pit.” Counsel rationalized FMC’s position in terms of perceived “fundamental differences” between the dewatering pit and the P-4 pit.
After further argument on March 13, the trial court refused both “Instruction No. 33” and “Instruction No. 33A.” Apparently the court’s only reservation as to “Instruction No. 33” was that it had been submitted solely to lend context to “Instruction No. 33A,” but the court was not prepared to give “Instruction No. 33A” in any event: “From the plaintiff’s argument, it sounds arguable that they could have made a case for two occurrences, but I find that they did not. Cannot try a case in a vacuum, it has not been noticed, it comes too late, so the issue has been deemed waived. HQ . . . HQ . . . The instruction that plaintiff seeks ... is that there are two occurrences, or can be two occurrences at Carteret. There is no such instruction, it comes too late, comes about 8 weeks too late.”
In its instructions to the fourth trial jury, the trial court neither defined nor otherwise explained “occurrence,” and instructed the jury generally, as to Carteret and other sites assigned to the fourth trial, that it would be incumbent upon FMC to prove that “third party property damage at the site” was “unexpected by the plaintiff.” With respect to the Carteret site the jury found that there had been third party property damage but that the damage had not been unexpected. On the basis of these special verdicts the trial court concluded that FMC was not entitled to coverage at the Carteret site.
On appeal FMC argues that refusal of its proposed “Instruction No. 33A” was error, and, in support of its assertion that the error was prejudicial, explicitly asserts (apparently for the first time) that “[i]f instructed on multiple occurrences, the jury might have.found there was coverage for FMC’s environmental liability arising from the P-4 pit even if its determination that FMC ‘expected’ the dewatering pit would pollute was proper.” As to the timeliness of its request, FMC argues that it had effectively disclosed its intention to pursue a multiple occurrence theory by its proposed special verdict form filed January 2 and by its “Instruction No. 33A” filed February 20, that its February 20 request was timely in light of Code of Civil Procedure section 607a (which permits “additional proposed instructions” in specified circumstances),
Ng
v.
Hudson
(1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 250, 259 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 69 ], and
Kirkpatrick
v.
Damianakes
(1936) 15 Cal.App.2d 446, 451 [ 59 P.2d 556 ], notwithstanding the trial court’s case management orders, and that counsel’s remarks on February 23 had not amounted to a denial that
*1165
FMC intended to rely on its assertedly previously disclosed multiple occurrence theory.
Whatever the propriety of FMC’s position on the merits of its multiple occurrence theory, we find FMC’s timeliness arguments unpersuasive.
Throughout these proceedings the trial court had properly sought to maintain tight control over the parties’ zealous advocacy of often diametrically opposed views as to numerous complex issues. The court insisted that (among several other things) counsel make prompt and complete disclosure of facts and legal theories to the end that, in the court’s often repeated phrase, the parties’ “cards” be “on the table face up.”
The January 2 deadline for submission of proposed instructions and verdict forms for the fourth trial had been set months earlier, before the third trial. Counsel for FMC acknowledged at hearing that FMC had.sought to exploit a multiple occurrence theory at the third trial; necessarily FMC was familiar with the theory well in advance of the January 2 deadline. Carteret was owned by FMC and had been for more than 30 years; it cannot be disputed that the analogies between the asserted multiple sources at Carteret and (for example) the Green River site would have been obvious to FMC long before January 2. A fortiori FMC should have understood not only the potential for asserting a multiple occurrence theory as to Carteret but also the potential significance of such an assertion when it submitted its otherwise unexplained special verdict form on January 2 and additional requested instructions on February 20. FMC’s assertion that on February 23 counsel “simply clarified that its multiple occurrence theory was based on the existence of multiple sources of pollution” is inconsistent with the record from which we have quoted. Code of Civil Procedure section 607a’s authorization to submit additional proposed instructions during trial extends (in pertinent part) to “questions of law developed by the evidence and not disclosed by the pleadings.” Whether or not FMC’s multiple occurrence theory might be said to have been “disclosed by the pleadings,” it is clear to us that there was no need whatsoever for FMC to have depended on trial evidence to disclose the potential availability of the theory. Both
Ng
and
Kirkpatrick
are factually distinguishable.
The trial court’s conclusion that FMC had waited too long to make a full and candid disclosure of its multiple occurrence theory was supported by the record and well within the scope of the court’s inherent power to control the proceedings before it. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 128;
Cottle
v.
Superior Court
(1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376-1379 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 ].) There was no error.
*1166
b.
Pocatello
Sources of pollution at FMC’s 1,500-acre Pocatello could be divided into 2 general categories: those which contaminated the groundwater by seepage from unlined ponds, and those which created airborne emissions leading to off-site surface damage. Before the fifth trial, FMC abandoned its claim for coverage for its air emissions. But throughout the proceedings FMC undertook (1) to distinguish a source of groundwater contamination of which it admittedly was aware from several sources of assertedly unexpected groundwater contamination, and (2) to seek coverage only as to the assertedly unexpected contamination.
FMC’s approach at Pocatello was distinct from its belatedly implemented tactic at Carteret: At Carteret, FMC had undertaken to show that there had been
two
occurrences and to ask the jury to make a separate finding on the “unexpectedly” issue as to each occurrence. At Pocatello FMC took the position that there was only
one
relevant occurrence, but that the occurrence included only the three sources (the “slurry/evaporation ponds,” “slag pit and slag pit sump,” and “railroad swale”) as to which FMC expected to be able to prove the resulting damage had been unexpected, and excluded the source (the “kiln ponds”) at which FMC had been aware of groundwater contamination before 1964. In support of its position FMC argued that the kiln ponds were factually distinguishable from other sites.
On the premise that FMC could not prove the kiln ponds contamination had been unexpected, the London defendants moved to exclude
all
evidence that groundwater property damage at Pocatello was unexpected. The London defendants argued that the “occurrence” at Pocatello included the releases from the kiln pond, and therefore if FMC could not prove the kiln ponds contamination was unexpected its expectations as to other Pocatello sources was irrelevant. They argued that all groundwater contamination sources at the site “are part of the same substantially similar exposure to the same general conditions. ... In lay terms, the groundwater problem is the result of leaky ponds. In terms of the policy language, the exposure to the same general conditions is the seepage of materials into the groundwater.”
The London defendants pointed out that in FMC’s pretrial offer of proof submitted several months earlier, in a detailed report by one of FMC’s expert witnesses submitted as part of the offer of proof, in the expert witness’s deposition answers given at the time the London motions were being made, and in FMC’s answers to certain interrogatories, neither FMC nor its witnesses had sought to distinguish among the various sources of groundwater contamination. In its offer of proof FMC had in fact listed the
*1167
kiln ponds with the slurry/evaporation ponds in a single undifferentiated category for purposes of physical analysis.
The trial court granted the London defendants’ motion, concluding that “[t]here is only one groundwater contamination occurrence at the site as a matter of law, because the evidence is undisputed that the property damage for which plaintiff is liable at Pocatello resulted from exposure to substantially the same general conditions at the site” and that the admissions implicit in FMC’s various pretrial statements had amounted to “a judicial admission that cannot be contradicted by contrary evidence . . . .”
It was apparent, in light of FMC’s awareness of contamination from the kiln ponds, that the trial court’s ruling would defeat FMC’s claim for coverage at Pocatello. Ostensibly to make a clear record, FMC stated its best Pocatello case one last time in the form of a “combined written opening statement and offer of proof’ placed in the court’s file two days before opening statements at the fifth trial. FMC’s document contained citation and discussion of judicial decisions in support of what can fairly be characterized as argument, and the trial court “rejected” the entire filing as an untimely attempt to reargue, or to obtain reconsideration of the court’s ruling on, the previous motions.
Counsel for FMC then made no mention of the Pocatello site in his opening statement, and on this ground the trial court granted the London defendants’ motion for nonsuit on opening statement as to the Pocatello site.
On appeal FMC argues (1) that by its reference to FMC’s expert reports, and its deposition and interrogatory answers, the trial court had improperly allowed the London defendants to misuse motions
in limine
to limit FMC’s evidence to that developed during pretrial discovery, (2) that determination of the number of occurrences at Pocatello, and particularly the issue whether separate sources of contamination could be regarded as “substantially the same general conditions” within the meaning of the one occurrence clause, were questions of fact as to which FMC should have been permitted to go to the jury, and (3) that the phrase “one premises location” in the one occurrence clause is ambiguous and could mean distinct areas within a single site.
In apparent support of its first point FMC also asserts that the trial court improperly treated the London defendants’ pretrial motions as in essence motions for summary adjudication, although the motions did not meet procedural requirements for summary adjudication. We need not address this assertion because FMC unquestionably waived it in the trial court when FMC characterized the London defendants’ motion to exclude evidence as “a
*1168
dispositive motion” which “was not filed by the dispositive motion deadline,” but then stated that “we will answer the motion without procedural objection, because it raises fundamental issues that should be decided.”
We shall reject FMC’s three points and conclude that nonsuit was properly granted.
For the point that the London defendants should not have been permitted to use motions
in limine
to limit FMC to positions it had taken in pretrial discovery, FMC relies on
Kelly
v.
New West Federal Savings
(1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ].
In
Kelly
two plaintiffs sought damages for injuries sustained in one of two adjacent elevators, termed the “large” elevator and the “small” elevator. One plaintiff could not remember which elevator had been involved; the other testified at deposition that it had been the “small” elevator. After it developed that provable conditions on the “large” elevator were more consistent with the plaintiffs’ theory of liability, the plaintiffs sought further discovery, but the trial court apparently denied the plaintiffs’ motion and granted defense motions
in limine
the net effect of which was to preclude evidence that the plaintiffs had been injured in the “large” elevator. The upshot was a judgment of nonsuit for the defense. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, concluding in dispositive part that “[i]t is a misuse of a motion
in limine
to attempt to compel a witness or a party to conform his or her trial testimony to a preconceived factual scenario based on testimony given during pretrial discovery.” ( 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 672 .)
The case before us is distinguishable from
Kelly .
The
Kelly
opinion explicitly recognizes that “ ‘[t]he usual purpose of motions
in limine
is to preclude the presentation of evidence deemed inadmissible and prejudicial by the moving party,’ ” and that when used for this purpose the procedure serves the interests of justice. (49 Cal.App.4th at pp. 669-670.) Manifestly it was for this purpose that the London defendants made the pretrial “motion[s] for court ruling” here.
The theory underlying the London defendants’ motions (and the trial court’s ultimate ruling) was that evidence that FMC had not expected contamination from sources other than the kiln ponds would be irrelevant, and thus inadmissible, if (as the London defendants contended and the trial court ultimately concluded) it appeared as a matter of law from undisputed facts that all the groundwater sources FMC had enumerated, including the kiln ponds, had given rise to “substantially the same general conditions
*1169
existing at or emanating from one premises location” and thus were to be “deemed one occurrence” for all purposes including resolution of the “unexpectedly” issue. The London defendants’ references to FMC’s offer of proof and discovery responses served simply to substantiate their assertion that the commonality among the groundwater contamination sources on the site was in fact undisputed. FMC’s response to the London defendants’ motions raised no new dispute as to what had long been essentially undisputed facts, but simply sought to challenge the London defendants’ position as to the legal characterization to be given to those facts. FMC’s subsequent elaborate “offer of proof,” submitted as trial began, was both belated and inappropriately combined with legal argument and was properly rejected.
FMC’s second point necessarily assumes, incorrectly in our view, that there were disputed issues of fact for a jury to resolve. Because the facts were essentially undisputed, it was the office of the court to determine, as a matter of law, whether and how the language of the London policies, and more specifically the one occurrence clause, applied to those undisputed facts. (Cf., e.g.,
Century Transit Systems, Inc.
v.
American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
(1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 121, 125 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 567 ];
California Shoppers, Inc.
v.
Royal Globe Ins. Co.
(1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1, 35 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 171 ].)
FMC’s third point appears to be that as a matter of law the trial court need not, and that as a matter of fact in this case the court should not, have treated the kiln ponds as part of the same “one premises location” with the slurry/ evaporation ponds, the slag pit and slag pit sump, and the railway swale for purposes of applying the one occurrence clause. We disagree with FMC. In common parlance the word “premises” refers to defined and utilized real property; the word “location,” following “premises” in the policies’ syntax, arguably is simply an alternative to “premises” (in which case “premises” should be treated as adjectival, modifying “location” to make clear what sort of “location” was intended) rather than a reference to a smaller part of an entire “premises.” But be this as it may, the court’s implicit conclusion from essentially undisputed empirical facts that
at the Pocatello site
all four sources were parts of a single “premises location” was consistent with the factual record as well as with the position FMC itself had taken in the course of discovery and trial preparation.
3.
Damage “Greater Than Expected”
Yet another facet of the “unexpectedly” issue was exposed during proceedings preliminary to the first trial, when the London defendants moved for a ruling “that, if FMC is ultimately shown to have expected or
*1170
intended to cause pollution-related damage at any of the six sites at issue [at the first trial], it is immaterial that the damage or injury that occurred was of a different type or nature from that which was expected or intended by FMC.” The question thus presented differed from that ultimately litigated at the Carteret and Pocatello sites: Rather than whether
separate sources
of third party property damage could be distinguished, the question was whether a significant distinction could be drawn between
different kinds of damage,
some expected and some unexpected, from a single source or cause.
The London defendants relied principally on
United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
v.
American Employer’s Ins. Co.
(1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 277 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 460 ]
(USF&G),
in which an insured under a homeowners policy had intentionally set fire to trash near an outbuilding but the fire had unexpectedly caused considerable additional damage. The liability coverage provisions of the homeowners policy contained an explicit exclusion for “ ‘bodily injury or property damage which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured’ ” ( 159 Cal.App.3d at p. 281, fn. 1 ), but in seeking to negate coverage for the unexpected consequences of the insured’s intentional tort the insurer relied primarily on Insurance Code section 533, which provides in pertinent part that “[a]n insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured . . . .” The Court of Appeal affirmed a denial of liability coverage as to all the damage, whether intended or unexpected, under both Insurance Code section 533 and the policy exclusion, holding it “immaterial that [the insured] subjectively did not expect or intend to cause the extent of damage which actually occurred.” ( 159 Cal.App.3d at p. 291 .)
In the pretrial proceedings FMC appeared willing to agree that if damage to
third party
property were not shown to have been “unexpected” then there would be no coverage either for that damage or for additional unexpected damage to third party property from the same cause. But the London policies’ definition of covered “property damage” did not include damage to property owned by FMC, and FMC argued that the fact FMC expected damage to
owned
property should not bar coverage from additional unexpected damage to
third party
property from the same cause. The London defendants appeared to agree to this qualification, and the trial court undertook to incorporate the parties’ positions into what came to be known as its “greater than expected” ruling: “If FMC expected or intended to damage third party property, there is no coverage either for that third party property damage or for any further third party property damage resulting therefrom, even though such further third party property damage exceeded the scope or nature of the expected or intended third party property damage, [fl] . . . If FMC expected or intended to damage its owned property, there is no coverage for FMC’s owned property.”
*1171
At the Fresno site in California, assigned to the first trial, there was a subsite known as the “4.92 acre site” which FMC and its predecessor had owned from 1931 until May 1964, three months before the London defendants first issued policies to FMC. In May 1964 FMC sold the 4.92 acre site to, and then leased it back from, Southern Pacific, and in 1981 FMC repurchased the 4.92 acre site. At all relevant times FMC had dumped insecticide residues on the 4.92 acre site; the residues ultimately percolated into the groundwater. At the first trial the London defendants requested an instruction, directed to the 4.92 acre site, in language similar to that of the first sentence of the “greater than expected” ruling. After review of the “greater than expected” ruling the trial court refused the instruction, implying that it was influenced by perceptions (1) that in all the circumstances the 4.92 acre site should be treated as property owned by FMC rather than as third party property and (2) that “such jumping from the soil condition to the groundwater damage is too big a jump, flj] And also it takes away from the jury the essential dispute in the case and that is whether or not ... the plaintiff expected groundwater damage to occur .... I consider it would be grave error for me to remove that from the jury.” No one sought review of this ruling, but the ruling is discussed on appeals which raise analogous issues with respect to the Mouat site in Montana (assigned to the fifth trial) and the Jacksonville site in Florida and the Malaga site in New Jersey (assigned to the sixth trial).
a.
Ownership of On-site Soil
At each of the Mouat, Jacksonville and Malaga sites the initial release of pollutants was onto on-site soil, from which the pollutants percolated into the groundwater. A threshold issue at each site was whether the on-site soil was ownéd by FMC.
The answer was clear at both Mouat and Malaga. FMC owned none of the property at the Mouat site, which it had undertaken to manage for a family business for a period of six months in 1961 and 1962. Thus the soil on the Mouat site was, for coverage purposes, third party property. At Malaga, on the other hand, FMC owned the site and thus its soil, and the jury was instructed that at Malaga the third party property damage as to which it would be required to address the “unexpectedly” issue was confined to groundwater and
off-site
soil.
But an issue as to ownership of the on-site soil was raised at the Jacksonville site. FMC had leased the site from railroad companies from 1946 to 1980, under a lease which required FMC to pay the property taxes and to indemnify the lessor against all claims and costs in connection with
*1172
property damage related to FMC’s use of the property; FMC ultimately purchased the site from its lessor in October 1980, 10 years after the last of the relevant London policy periods. Thus the situation at Jacksonville was somewhat similar to that at the 4.92 acre site, where the trial court appeared to have concluded that the leased site should be deemed owned by FMC for coverage purposes.
It was to the London defendants’ tactical advantage to attempt to establish, notwithstanding the earlier ruling as to the 4.92 acre site, that the soil at Jacksonville was third party property and thus to cast on FMC the relatively heavy burden of proving that damage to the on-site soil had been unexpected. The London defendants sought to do so in proceedings preliminary to the sixth trial.
To this end, in pretrial proceedings London asserted that “[t]he on-site soil at Jacksonville was not owned by FMC.” FMC responded that it had “effectively or actually owned the Jacksonville site since 1946; and ... the on-site soil at Jacksonville should be treated as owned, not third-party, property under London’s policies.” FMC argued that under the circumstances of record, “where a long-term lessor is [] the functional equivalent of the owner of a site and then purchases that site, the property should be treated as owned property under the insurance policy’s coverage provisions.”
The trial court ruled, succinctly, that “the property is found as a matter of law to be nonowned. Leased property is not owned property.”
On appeal FMC seeks review of this ruling.
First FMC asserts, apparently for the first time on appeal, that the ruling and the subsequent jury instructions had amounted to an “unwarranted expansion of FMC’s coverage claim without FMC’s consent . . . .” FMC argues that “London cannot create a claim that FMC never asserted — a fictional claim — for the purpose of invoking a policy exclusion that could only apply to the fictional claim .... Absent a claim for coverage to a class of property within the scope of the insuring agreement, the question of whether the policy exclusion for ‘expected or intended’ damage does not and cannot arise.”
FMC’s argument seeks to import into the definition of “occurrence” a limitation the policy does not impose. Nothing in the policy language empowers the insured, by its characterization of its claim or by any other means, to redefine the “occurrence” on which it bases a coverage claim to exclude those elements of a single coherent “continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which . . . results in . . . property damage” which might
*1173
defeat its attempt to prove that the “exposure” and resultant “property damage” were unexpected. Put another way, nothing in the policy language restricts an insurer’s power to require its insured to prove all elements of its coverage claim with respect to all elements of the underlying “continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which . . . results in . . . property damage.”
FMC’s second argument slightly shifts the emphasis of its trial-court assertion that its leasehold during the 1964-1970 policy periods should have been deemed tantamount to ownership. FMC now argues that it is its 1980 purchase of the Jacksonville site that should be dispositive: “[T]he overarching purpose of the policy is to reimburse the insured for liability incurred on account of ‘property damage.’ [Citing the policy.] It makes more sense to answer the question whether the property is or is not ‘owned’ at the time the claim is made — at the time London’s obligations under the policy are to be performed.” Again FMC’s argument overtaxes the policy language, which defines property damage in terms which manifestly relate to the time of damage or destruction: “[L]oss of or direct damage to or destruction of tangible property (other than property owned by the Named Insured).” And aside from the plain meaning of the property language, the construction FMC proposes would empower the insured impermissibly to manipulate coverage after the loss.
We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the soil at the Jacksonville site was third party property at times relevant to coverage. We reiterate that the court’s earlier ruling as to the 4.92 acre site is not before us for review.
b.
“Unexpected” Groundwater Damage
As to all three sites FMC argues that the trial court improperly foreclosed coverage for assertedly unexpected damage to groundwater in circumstances in which the jury might have found that FMC had expected only damage to soil. We shall conclude that the trial court ruled and instructed correctly with respect to this issue at the Mouat, Jacksonville and Malaga sites.
i.
Mouat
At the fifth trial FMC acknowledged that wastes it had discharged to waste piles and ponds on the Mouat site had contaminated both soil and groundwater, and that contamination had persisted into the 1964-1970 policy periods, but tried and argued the case on the theory that it had not
expected
*1174
damage to either the soil or the groundwater during the 1964-1970 policy periods.
In preliminary pretrial proceedings FMC acknowledged that there was only one occurrence, within the meaning of the London policies, at the Mouat site.
But before trial began FMC submitted a proposed special verdict form for the Mouat site that would have called upon the jury to make findings, both as to whether there had been third party property damage and as to whether the damage had been unexpected,
separately
as to soil and as to groundwater. The London defendants immediately sought a protective order to prevent FMC from arguing that it would be “entitled to coverage at the site if it expected soil contamination but not groundwater contamination.” In response, FMC again acknowledged that there was only one occurrence at the site, and that it “will state and argue that it did not expect property damage to either the soil or the groundwater during the policy years,” but argued that the jury could nevertheless conclude that FMC “did expect soil damage but did not expect groundwater damage,” and that upon such findings FMC should be “entitled to coverage for costs incurred in the investigation and remediation of such unexpected groundwater damage including removal or treatment of the source of such damage.”
FMC.’s argument obviously called the “greater than expected” ruling into question; FMC sought to invoke the trial court’s first trial ruling concerning the 4.92 acre site. The trial court responded that the 4.92 acre site had presented “a totally different situation,” and granted, the London defendants’ motion in terms of the occurrence concept: “As a matter of law, there are not two occurrences because there are two different kinds of third party property that have been affected. And the plaintiff will be precluded from suggesting that to the jury in any stage of the proceedings. There is a single occurrence and that is the law that will govern this trial.” Implicit in the court’s ruling was a determination that only a single undifferentiated finding as to the “unexpectedly” element would be required.
In the course of the fifth trial FMC continued to focus on a distinction between expectation of soil damage and expectation of groundwater damage, and requested an instruction that the jury “should consider soil and groundwater separately in determining whether third-party property damage occurred during the insurance policy years and, if so, whether such damage was unexpected by FMC.” The London defendants, in turn, requested an instruction, along the lines of the “greater than expected ruling,” that (as modified in the course of colloquy) “[i]f FMC expected to damage third-party property at any site, it is immaterial that the resulting third-party
*1175
property damage at that site may have been greater than or different from that which FMC believed would occur.” The court and counsel referred to this as a
“USF&G
instruction.” The trial court refused FMC’s instruction and then rejected FMC’s proposed verdict form, primarily because now “[tjhere is no instruction that would permit this bifurcation.”
In further colloquy on the London defendants’
“USF&G
instruction,” counsel for FMC appeared to shift position: “We have consistently said . . . and we’ll say in closing that we did not expect
soil or
groundwater, and that’s the way we’ve tried the case. . . . [1[] What really is wrong with this U.S.F.& G. instruction is it[]s potential to be misinterpreted, to say if plaintiff knew of damage
in one year,
that means it knew of damage
in another year. That’s what is really going on here,
ffl . . . [H] • • • fflf the basis is simply the claim that we are implying that we may have expected soil but not groundwater,
we are not implying that
and that U.S.F.& G. instruction should not be given.” (Italics added.)
Counsel for the London defendants responded that he feared FMC would in fact argue the distinction between soil damage and groundwater damage, but the trial court was persuaded by FMC’s disavowal: “They are not arguing it now, so I’m not inclined to give U.S.F.& G., because there’s no other issue in the case . . . which it addresses.” The court encouraged the London defendants “to promptly object if there’s any indirect argument or any kind of argument that would trigger this
[USF&G]
instruction.”
The court instructed the jury in pertinent part that “[t]o be entitled to a verdict on this claim plaintiff must prove to the jury the existence of each of the following three elements: [f] One, that there was a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions that caused third-party property damage at each such site; [^] Two, that such resulting third-party property damage occurred during the policy period; [f] And three, that such resulting third-party property damage during the policy period was unexpected by the plaintiff. [1D • • •
ñi
Third-party property is to be distinguished from property owned by the plaintiff. [^] Third-party property is all other property. All not-owned property, ffl] Third-party property includes groundwater.”
In summation, counsel for FMC asserted several times that FMC had not expected contamination to soil or to groundwater, but did not assert a dispositive distinction between the two, and in one instance suggested to the jury that “the issue” was “[wjhether they believed they damaged the soil or groundwater underneath
or either one.”
(Italics added.)
The jury concluded that the third party property damage at Mouat (left undifferentiated by the court’s instructions and counsel’s summation) had
*1176
not been unexpected, and on that basis the trial court denied coverage for Mouat.
On appeal FMC argues , in essence that the combined effect of the trial court’s rulings and jury instructions had been (notwithstanding the court’s denial of an explicit
“USF&G
instruction”) to implement a rule, broadly consistent with the pretrial “greater than expected” ruling, that a showing of
any
third party property damage that FMC could not prove to be unexpected would suffice to bar coverage for FMC’s liability for
all
third party property damage from the same cause. FMC asserts that the initial “greater than expected” ruling had misconstrued
USF&G
and was an “erroneous statement of law.” FMC argues that “[t]he rule that liability coverage is barred when the insured expected some harm to result from his actions applies only to situations such as arson, or child molestation, where the insured’s actions are ‘inherently harmful’ as a matter of law. Where the insured’s actions are not
per se
injurious, it is a question of fact for the jury as to whether any particular type of harm was in fact ‘expected’ by FMC.” Ipso facto (FMC argues) the trial court’s ruling and instructions were also erroneous.
FMC’s argument to this court is not consistent with the posture it assumed at the fifth trial once the trial court had rejected its proposed instruction and verdict form, but we elect to treat that posture as a tactical response to the court’s rulings rather than as a waiver of FMC’s objections to them.
FMC’s characterization of the practical effect of the trial court’s rulings is plausible: The trial court essentially told the jury that if it found that property damage to
any
third party property had not been unexpected, then it could not find that “third-party property damage” (as an undifferentiated concept) had been unexpected. This was, at least as a practical matter, tantamount to a “greater than expected” instruction.
The dispositive question is whether the rule implicit in the trial court’s ruling and instructions (whether or not the rule exactly reflects the “greater than expected” ruling) is a valid construction of the London policies under California law.
USF&G
itself does not provide a dispositive answer. The Court of Appeal referred primarily to Insurance Code section 533, and addressed the policy’s “expected or intended” exclusion only by way of what was at most an alternative holding, concluding that, under the policy exclusion, “ ‘[s]o long as the injury was intended, willed, or maliciously sought,
it is immaterial that an injury of a different nature from that actually contemplated in fact result
ed.’ [Citation.] . . . ft[] . . . [The insured] clearly acted with the wrongful
*1177
intent to cause damage to the property against which he set the fire.
It is immaterial that he subjectively did not expect or intend to cause the extent of damage which actually occurred.” (159 Cal.App.3d at pp. 290-291.) The Court of Appeal added that this conclusion “ ‘recognizes the correlation [between act and intent] only where reason mandates that from the very nature of the act, harm to the injured party must have been intended.’ [Citation.]”
(Id.
at p. 291, fn. 9.) It is apparent that the “greater than expected” ruling, and the rule the trial court adopted with respect to the Mouat site, were considerably broader than USF&G’s alternative holding, but this perception is insufficient in and of itself to establish that either the “greater than expected” ruling or the instruction was an erroneous statement of the law:
USF&G
does not foreclose a broader rule in appropriate circumstances.
FMC supplements its analysis of
USF&G
with a citation to
J. C. Penney Casualty Ins. Co.
v.
M. K.
(1991) 52 Cal.3d 1009 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 64 , 804 P.2d 689 ], which holds that Insurance Code section 533 proscribes liability insurance coverage for harms caused by sexual molestation of a child but, like
USF&G,
does not necessarily foreclose a broader rule.
For affirmative support for its assertion that, “where the act is not inherently harmful as a matter of law,” distinctions can and should be drawn among expectations of soil contamination, soil damage, and groundwater damage, FMC relies on
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines
v.
Aetna Cas. and Sur.
(D.N.J. 1993) 817 F.Supp. 1136, 1151-1152
(Chemical Leaman I), Chemical Leaman Tank Lines
v.
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
(3d Cir. 1996) 89 F.3d 976, 987-988
(Chemical Leaman II),
and
Shell Oil Co.
v.
Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co., supra,
12 Cal.App.4th 715, 747 , and also seeks support by analogy in
Chu
v.
Canadian Indemnity Co.
(1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 86, 98-99 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 20 ], a construction defect case.
Three of these cases are of only limited relevance to the narrow question whether, under the London policies and California law, a showing of any third party property damage that was not unexpected from the standpoint of the insured would bar coverage for the insured’s liability for all third party property damage from the same cause.
Shell,
a highly significant decision for many purposes, appears not to have been called upon to address this question and in fact does not address it, although some of the opinion’s language suggests (without analysis) an assumption, contrary to the trial court’s implicit rule in this action, that there might be coverage for any element of third party property damage that was shown to be unexpected. FMC also assigns significance to
Shell’s
use of the
*1178
words “that kind of’ in its statement of the “appropriate test for ‘expected’ damage”: “whether the insured knew or believed its conduct was substantially certain or highly likely to result in
that kind of
damage.” ( 12 Cal.App.4th at p. 748 , italics added.) FMC concludes that these words imply a requirement that the “unexpectedly” issue be resolved separately as to every separately identifiable “kind” of third party property damage attributable to a single cause. We disagree with FMC. We are not persuaded that
Shell’s
choice of words either implies or compels such a requirement.
Chu
concerned loss-in-progress issues and is in relevant respects both factually and analytically distinguishable from this action.
Chemical Leaman I
was only one of two trial court opinions reviewed in
Chemical Leaman II,
which as a practical matter assimilates and supersedes
Chemical Leaman I.
On the other hand,
Chemical Leaman II,
a federal court of appeals decision applying New Jersey law, provides thoughtful discussion of closely analogous issues.
In
Chemical Leaman II,
the insured under general liability insurance policies, issued by London insurers and containing an “occurrence” definition similar if not identical to that in the policies before us, sought coverage for its liability for remediation of environmental contamination. The federal district court instructed the jury, among other things, that “ ‘you must consider whether [the insured] subjectively expected or intended the very damage that is the subject matter of this case. Thus, it is not sufficient for you to find that [the insured] expected or intended any injury — such as injury to the environment generally. Rather, you must determine whether [the insured] expected or intended the actual property damage that it is now required to clean-up.’ ” (89 F.3d at pp. 986-987.) On appeal from a judgment on adverse verdicts, the insurers argued that the instruction had been erroneous in that the jury should have been instructed, arguably in accord with previous decisions of New Jersey state courts, that if the insured had “ ‘expected or intended’ to cause some injury to the environment generally, then coverage was precluded unless the extent of the injury was improbable.”
{Id.
at p. 987.)
The federal court of appeals disagreed with the insurers. Essentially acknowledging that the New Jersey courts had not yet gone so far, the court of appeals concluded that the New Jersey Supreme Court “would reject” the insurers’ argument: “An insured who intentionally discharges a known pollutant generally intends ‘some sort of harm,’ however
de minimis,
and the
*1179
harm that actually results is usually a probable result of the discharge. Accordingly, the [insurers’] reading . . . would result in a general rule precluding coverage based on the knowing discharge of a pollutant. But. . . the New Jersey Supreme Court [has] held ‘a general rule . . . [precluding coverage] simply on the basis of a knowing discharge of pollutants would be unjustified.’ ”
(Chemical Leaman II, supra,
89 F.3d at p. 987 .)
The court of appeals adopted the New Jersey Supreme Court’s pledge to “ ‘attempt to reconcile two goals: that of deterring intentional wrongdoing by precluding insurance indemnification, and that of providing victims with compensation to the extent that compensation will not interfere with deterring injurious behavior.’ ”
(Chemical Leaman II, supra,
89 F.3d at p. 988 .) The court of appeals concluded that “[i]f an insured does not understand the causal connection between the discharge of a pollutant and the property damage that results, deterrence is not served by precluding insurance coverage. Moreover, where an insured does not intend or expect property damage of a particular nature to result from its discharge of pollutants, the insured has an ‘objectively reasonable expectation’ of coverage should such property damage later manifest itself. . . . [W]e believe the New Jersey Supreme Court would inquire into the insured’s intent or expectation to cause environmental harm of a particular sort, for example, whether the insured intended damage to the soil, groundwater, or wetlands. . . . [A]n insured’s intent to cause environmental harm of one sort will not preclude coverage for other kinds of unintended and unexpected environmental harm. For example, an insured’s intent to cause soil damage will not preclude coverage for unintended and unexpected damage to the groundwater or wetlands.”
{Ibid.)
With due respect for the federal court of appeals’ careful analysis of New Jersey law, we are not persuaded that its conclusion is or should be the law of California. The issue in the action before us is not — as it was in certain of the New Jersey state court cases the federal court of appeals discussed— whether an
expectation of third party property damage
can be presumed from the initial
act of knowing discharge
of pollutants. Here the jury was explicitly charged that it must find both that there was third party property damage and that “such resulting third-party property damage . . . was unexpected by the plaintiff.” The instruction exactly corresponded to the language of the policies’ “occurrence” definition.
Nor does the trial court’s implicit rule disserve any public policy of which we are aware. If (as the policy language and the trial court’s instruction required to avoid coverage)
any
of the third party property damage resulting from FMC’s knowing release of pollutants was not unexpected from FMC’s
*1180
perspective, then denial of coverage for
all
such property damage is entirely consistent with a policy of dissuading insureds from releasing pollutants which they subjectively expect to cause third party property damage.
We conclude that the trial court’s rulings and instructions were valid under California law.
ii.
Jacksonville and Malaga
Jacksonville and Malaga were pesticide formulation facilities operated by FMC. At each site FMC had in various ways placed insecticide wastes on the surface of the site and the wastes had contaminated the soil and percolated into the groundwater. At the sixth trial the parties stipulated that third party property damage had resulted at each site during each policy period, and the jury was asked only to determine whether the damage had been
unexpected
from FMC’s standpoint. At the London defendants’ request and over FMC’s objection, the trial court did give what FMC refers to as a
“USF&G
instruction” at the sixth trial, telling the jury that “if F.M.C. expected damage to third party property to result at any site, it is immaterial that the resulting third party property damage at that site may have been greater than or different from that which F.M.C. believed would occur.” The jury found that the damage had
not
been unexpected at Jacksonville or Malaga, and on this basis the trial court denied coverage at Jacksonville and at Malaga.
The giving of the
“USF&G
instruction” raised the “greater than expected” issues even more directly with respect to Jacksonville and Malaga than they had been raised with respect to Mouat. But the giving of the instruction would not alter the analysis we have stated. In the circumstances of record the instruction was proper.
4.
Contamination as Damage
At the sixth trial, at which the parties had stipulated to the existence of third party property damage and the only issue for the jury was whether the damage had been unexpected, the trial court instructed the jury, essentially for its guidance in approaching the “unexpectedly” issue, that “property damage . . . means loss of or direct knowledge [the written instruction from which the court read said ‘damage’] to or destruction of tangible third party property. [1fl Third party property means or is to be distinguished from property owned by plaintiff. [H] Third party property is all other property, all nonowned property. [H] Now, at the Ennis site [not involved in these appeals], the third party property damage for which F.M.C. is liable is off-site groundwater contamination damage. fl[] Ennis is off-site groundwater contamination damage. [II] At the Malaga site, the third party property
*1181
damage for which F.M.C. is liable is groundwater and off-site soil contamination damage, fl[] At Malaga it’s groundwater and off-site soil contamination damage. flO And at the Harlingen [not involved in these appeals] and Jacksonville sites, the third party property damage for which F.M.C. is liable is on and off-site soil and groundwater contamination damage. HQ Harlingen and Jacksonville, it’s on and off-site soil contamination, soil and groundwater contamination damage.”
On appeal FMC argues that, by its repetitive use of the phrase “contamination damage,” the trial court erroneously led the jury to believe that there was an equivalence between “contamination” and “damage” such that if the jury believed “contamination” had not been unexpected from FMC’s standpoint then it must necessarily conclude that “damage” had not been unexpected. The crux of FMC’s argument is its assertion that although “today’s stringent environmental laws” might declare that “contamination” is equivalent to “damage,” it was “manifestly unjust” to suggest to the jury, for the purpose of determining what FMC’s subjective expectations would have been in the 1960’s, that
at that time,
30 years before the time of trial, such expectation as FMC might have had that its activities would
contaminate
the environment should be deemed tantamount to an expectation that its activities would
damage
the environment within the meaning of the policy language. FMC adds an argument that this asserted injustice “was compounded by the trial judge’s erroneous refusal to allow FMC to introduce evidence or to argue that laws and community standards pertaining to waste disposal were vastly different in the 1960s than they are now.”
We find FMC’s argument unpersuasive. We agree with the London defendants that “the use of the adjective ‘contamination’ to modify the word ‘damage’ ” in the instruction of which FMC complains “appropriately describes for the jury the type of damage for which FMC claims insurance coverage.”
FMC’s reference to an asserted refusal to allow evidence is apparently based on the trial court’s order granting London defendants’
in limine
motion to preclude (for example, and among other things) “[References to what lay people, businesses or corporations (other than what was communicated to FMC) purportedly thought about the environment in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, or awareness of the environmental concerns of lay people or businesses in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s,” and “[References that environmental regulations are more numerous or are stricter in recent years than in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.” Again we agree with the London defendants: The trial court’s order was fully justifiable in terms of weighing the relatively slight probative force of the precluded evidence against its substantial potential for undue consumption of time and confusion of issues.
*1182
(Cf. Evid. Code, § 352.) In any event FMC concedes that it advances this point not as an assertion of independent error but only as one aspect of its contention that the trial court’s use of the term “contamination damage” was error. We conclude that the point is not well taken for either purpose.
“All Sums’’
Within the terms and limitations of their umbrella policies the London defendants agreed to indemnify FMC for “all sums” which FMC should become obligated to pay by reason of specified liabilities.
The trial court initially construed the scope of the London defendants’ indemnification obligation quite narrowly, ruling that FMC would be required to establish a trigger of coverage on a period-by-period basis and would be entitled to indemnification only as to damages that occurred within a policy period as to which it had established a trigger of coverage. At the first four trials in this action, the trial court made these initial rulings the basis for a determination that the amount of indemnity to which FMC would be entitled, for damages characteristically spread over many policy periods, should be determined by
allocation
between the insurers (for periods in which coverage had been established) and FMC (for periods in which FMC was uninsured or for any other reason had not established coverage). At the first trial the parties resolved the allocation issues by stipulation, but allocation issues were tried to the court, after the jury phase on coverage issues, at the second, third and fourth trials.
Meanwhile, in
Montrose II
(filed more than two years after the trial court’s initial ruling), the Supreme Court had effectively vitiated the trial court’s determination that what the Supreme Court characterized as an “injury-in-fact trigger” of coverage should be applied period by period. In circumstances broadly analogous to those of this action the Supreme Court endorsed, instead, the continuous injury or multiple trigger we have described above.
And several months later, in
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
v.
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra,
45 Cal.App.4th 1 , an asbestos case, the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District read the “all sums” language of standard form CGL policies very broadly: “[Ojnce coverage is triggered, the insurer’s obligation to the policyholder is to cover the policyholder’s liability ‘in full’ up to the policy limits. It is irrelevant that only part of the asbestos-related disease developed during any single policy period or during a period in which the manufacturer had no insurance. The logical consequence of this ruling is that the policyholder is covered (up to the policy limits) for the full
*1183
extent of its liability and need not pay a pro rata share. [Citations.]” ( 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 57 .)
Armstrong World Industries
in pertinent part cited and relied on
Keene Corp.
v.
Ins. Co. of North America
(D.C. Cir. 1981) 667 F.2d 1034 [ 215 App.D.C. 156 ], also an asbestos case, in which the federal court of appeals had held among other things that “only one policy’s limits can apply to each injury. [The insured] may select the policy under which it is to be indemnified. [Citation.]” (667 F.2d at pp. 1049-1050.)
Armstrong World Industries
noted that in the case before it the trial court had ruled, consistent with
Keene,
that “only one policy’s limits can apply to each claim, and the policyholder may select the policy under which it is to be indemnified,” and that on appeal “[t]he policyholders have not challenged this ruling.” ( 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 50, fn. 15 .)
At the fifth trial in this action the trial court conducted a separate nonjury allocation hearing under its previous rulings but then, on motion for reconsideration before entry of its fifth trial “judgment,” took cognizance of
Armstrong World Industries,
reversed the position it had previously taken, ruled that allocation was
not
required, and adopted the following language for use (with slight variations) in the fifth and subsequent “judgments”: “[U]nder
Armstrong World Industries,
each insurance policy of the London defendants from August 5, 1964, to October 1, 1970, is triggered and each must pay, subject to its policy limits, retentions, underlying insurance limits and other policy language, and subject to the anti-stacking qualifications of the ‘all sums’ analysis (per
Armstrong World Industries
and
Keene Corp.),
all sums that FMC is legally obligated to pay as damages to investigate and to remediate the third-party property damage for which plaintiff is liable at the [pertinent] sites.”
The trial court’s reference to “anti-stacking qualifications” may be understood to mean Keene's statement that (as subsequently paraphrased in
Armstrong World Industries)
“only one policy’s limits- can apply to each claim, and the policyholder may select the policy under which it is to be indemnified.” ( 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 50, fn. 15 .)
On appeal the parties agree that the allocation incorporated in the first trial “judgment” is not subject to reversal or modification by this court inasmuch as it was based on the stipulation of the parties. FMC attacks, and the London defendants defend, the allocation rulings incorporated in the second, third, and fourth trial “judgments.” As to the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth trial “judgments,” the London defendants attack the trial court’s “all sums” ruling, and FMC defends the general import of the ruling while raising three
*1184
issues concerning the scope and provisions of the “judgments” the trial court entered.
1.
Armstrong World Industries
The London defendants attack the
Armstrong World Industries
“all sums” analysis and the trial court’s endorsement of it, arguing that the trial court’s earlier orders were based on sounder reasoning, that the “all sums” position is “inconsistent with the policy language, the expectations of the parties, and numerous principles of insurance law,” that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Buss
v.
Superior Court, supra,
16 Cal.4th 35 supports allocation between insurer and insured, that “all sums” would mean an unwarranted windfall for FMC, and that “nearly every decision in the country” agrees with the London defendants’ position.
Our own review satisfied us that the
Armstrong World Industries
analysis is sound; we shall respond only briefly to the London defendants’ specific arguments.
The London defendants argue that “[t]he ‘all sums’ approach disregards the essential policy period limitation.” The crux of this argument is the London defendants’ theory that the reference in the policies’ definition of “occurrence” to “property damage . . . during the policy period” limits the scope of coverage to the policy period. The argument appears to disregard the distinction between
trigger
of coverage and
scope
of coverage. The policies’ “occurrence” definition, read with the insuring provisions, simply makes clear what must occur during the policy period in order for coverage to attach. Once coverage has attached — i.e., once it has been triggered — it will extend to all of the insured’s liability for damages attributable to the same occurrence in and after the policy period. Thus, for example, one condition of the London policies was that (subject to other policy terms) “in the event that . . . property damage arising out of an occurrence covered hereunder is continuing at the time of termination of this policy Underwriters will continue to protect the Assured for liability in respect of such . . . property damagé without payment of additional premium.”
Next the London defendants assert that “[t]he ‘all sums’ approach is inconsistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties.” They rely on evidence that FMC actively sought to procure other insurance in the 1970’s, and argue that it is also “unreasonable to think that London Insurers would issue policies, the ultimate scope of liability of which would turn on whether the insured purchased subsequent insurance from which London Insurers could later seek contribution.” They quote
Buss
v.
Superior Court, supra,
16
*1185
Cal.4th 35: “ ‘Surely, even if the policy’s language were unclear, the hypothetical insured could not have an objectively reasonable expectation that it was entitled to what would in fact be a windfall.’ ( 16 Cal.4th at 59 .)” But their argument begs the question of what these parties would have intended by the words “all sums.” In any event recourse to the parties’ unexpressed expectations is normally appropriate only to resolve ambiguities in policy language (cf., e.g.,
AIU Ins. Co.
v.
Superior Court, supra,
51 Cal.3d at pp. 821-822), and in this case the plain policy language leaves no room, in this respect, for speculation as to the parties’ expectations.
The London defendants briefly assert that “[t]he ‘all sums’ approach applied here effectively imposes joint and several liability on London Insurers, a result expressly disapproved in
Montrose IF
and in conflict with cases such as
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
v.
Superior Court
(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 435, 441 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 520 ]. The word “effectively” presumably reflects the London defendants’ understanding that they would not literally be jointly and severally liable: As
Armstrong World Industries
itself pointed out, “. . . the doctrine of joint and several liability has no application to the obligations of successive insurers of a single policyholder.” ( 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 55 , fn. omitted; cf.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
v.
Superior Court, supra,
29 Cal.App.4th 435, 441 .) The London defendants’ point appears to be that by virtue of the trial court’s “all sums” ruling they might unfairly be required to answer for sums which, in fairness, should be allocated to other insurers. In the usual case these concerns would be addressed in proceedings, independent of the determination of each individual insurer’s liability to its insured, to allocate a paid loss among all insurers on the risk on the basis of contractual other-insurance provisions or equitable considerations. (Cf.
Montrose II, supra,
10 Cal.4th at p. 665 .) The London defendants argue that such proceedings would be “completely illusory” in this case, where (in the London defendants’ view) “other insurers generally do not provide coverage due to exclusions (like the pre-1964 deemer exclusions and post-1970 pollution exclusions) . . . .” The record before us would not permit evaluation of whether other insurers would be on the risk with the London defendants for purposes of separate allocation proceedings among insurers. But in any event the availability of allocation among multiple insurers is essentially irrelevant to each individual insurer’s obligation to its insured under the terms of the parties’ insurance contract. (Cf.
Montrose II, supra,
10 Cal.4th at p. 665 ;
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
v.
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra,
45 Cal.App.4th at p. 56 ; see generally,
Aerojet-General Corp.
v.
Transport Indemnity Co., supra,
17 Cal.4th at p. 75 .)
The London defendants next argue that the “all sums” approach “nullifies” Insurance Code section 533, which provides in pertinent part that “[a]n
*1186
insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured . . . .” For example, the London defendants argue, “if a jury finds that coverage for property damage at a site was barred after 1970 under Insurance Code [section] 533, the ‘all sums’ theory nonetheless permits the insured to transfer liability for
all
property damage (even the post-1970 damage) onto the pre-1970 policies.” But the London defendants do n

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2258115. Public record. Not legal advice.