finding, prior to Woo, a subjective standard applied where an insurance policy provided that an occurrence was covered ‘“which unexpectedly and unintentionally’” resulted in damage, and distinguishing cases in which cpurts relied on common law definitions of “accident”
How later courts described this case
- finding, prior to Woo, a subjective standard applied where an insurance policy provided that an occurrence was covered ‘“which unexpectedly and unintentionally’” resulted in damage, and distinguishing cases in which cpurts relied on common law definitions of “accident”
- recognizing that sometimes language in standard policies does not involve mutual negotiations between the insurers and the insureds
- holding that a party does not need to object to factual distinctions in a special verdict form when the “issue was resolved on a summary motion brought before trial” and the trial court declined to reconsider its summary judgment ruling
- concluding that “these exclusions are ambiguous, and therefore should be construed against the drafter-insurer, to mean that if the polluting event is unexpected and unintended, coverage is provided”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Andersen, C.J.
(concurring and dissenting) — I concur with the result and the reasoning of all of the issues in Justice Brachtenbach’s majority opinion with the exception of the material misrepresentation issue. With respect to that issue, I agree with Justice Utter’s dissenting opinion that evidence was presented from which the jury reasonably *106 could have found a material misrepresentation and that we should respect the jury’s finding of fact on that issue.
[Dissent amended by orders of the Supreme Court March 22 and July 20, 1995.]