Morrone v. Harleysville Mut. Ins.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, “other than being a source of potable water, [groundwater] is certainly not susceptible to the custody or control of a property owner” and “does not clearly fall within the category of ‘owned property’ for purposes of the exclusion”
• rejecting the argument that a right to “beneficial use” of groundwater represents a proprietary interest sufficient to invoke the owned-property exclusion
• exposure to gasoline sufficient to trigger occurrence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).