United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Thomas Solvent Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting manifestation trigger and holding occurrence may have happened after each exposure of the environment to a pollutant
• where an insurer’s arguments against a duty to defend are based on facts outside the complaint, courts generally rule that the claims must nevertheless be defended.
• “from the standpoint of the insured damages are being sought for injury to property. It is that contractual understanding rather than some artificial and highly technical meaning of damages which ought to control”
• there is “no reason why the insured, whose insurer is obligated by contract to defend him, should have to try the facts in a suit against his insurer in order to obtain a defense”
• “the insured ought to be able to rely on the common sense expectation that property damage within the meaning of the policy includes a claim which results in causing him to pay sums of money_”
• when insurer's motion for summary judgment on rescission claim was denied, due to genuine dispute as to whether the insured obtained the policy by fraud and misrepresentation, the insurer had duty to defend

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).