...
首页> 外文期刊>Canadian Environmental Law Reports >Indexed as: West Van Holdings Ltd. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company
【24h】

Indexed as: West Van Holdings Ltd. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company

机译:索引:West Van Holdings Ltd. V.经济互保公司

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Insurance — Actions on policies — Commencement of proceedings — Obligations of insurer — To defend — Interpretation of policy — Insured, owner and operator of dry cleaning business on property, held commercial general liability insurance policies issued by, at different times, insurers with coverage for property damage liability that was limited to property damage liability arising from pollutants — When insured were sued by plaintiff neighbours for contamination of their lands, they successfully applied for declaration that insurers were required to defend them in action and were awarded special costs of that application — Insurers appealed — Appeal allowed — Insured's argument that they were exposed in underlying action to claim based on contamination caused by predecessor third party was not supported by pleadings that made no mention of any predecessor owner or operation — Pleadings made no allegation that third party predecessor owner or operator caused contamination and so there was no possibility that insured were exposed to retroactive liability as subsequent owner/operator under Environmental Management Act because of actions of third party — In any event, such claim under Act did not fall within grant of coverage by commercial general liability policy that only covered events occurring during policy period and not events that took place long before it came into effect — If insured could be liable under Act for such damage, it was not risk that insurers covered under their policy — Remaining claims under Act, in negligence or in nuisance, fell within initial grant of coverage as allegations of property damage occurring during policy periods, but they were clearly and unambiguously captured by exclusion clauses and so there was no duty to defend.
机译:保险 - 关于政策的行动 - 诉讼程序的开始 - 保险公司的义务 - 捍卫干洗业务的政策保险,业主和运营商在不同时代举行的商业一般责任保险政策,保险公司有保险公司财产损失责任仅限于污染物所产生的财产损失责任 - 被保险人被原告邻国起诉,以污染其土地,他们成功申请了保险公司在行动中捍卫他们并获得该申请的特殊成本的宣言 - 保险公司上诉 - 上诉允许的 - 保险人的论点,即他们在基于前任第三方造成的污染不支持任何不提到任何前身所有者或履行的污染的污染的歧视的索赔宣誓,这是第三方前任所有者没有指控没有提到第三方前任所有者的指控或操作员造成污染,所以在那里由于第三方的行动,由于第三方的行动,由于第三方的行为,这是由于第三方的行为,因此在任何情况下,不可能被保险到追溯责任,这项法案下的索赔并未落入仅涵盖事件的商业一般责任政策的保留范围内在政策期间出现,而不是在其生效之前发生的事件 - 如果保险可能会责任进行此类损害,则不会在其政策申请的保险公司下的行为,在疏忽或滋扰中承担危险的风险由于在政策期间发生的财产损失指控,覆盖范围的初始拨款范围内,但除了排除条款,他们明确毫不含糊地捕获,因此没有责任捍卫。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号