# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 34 54

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Jo hn Goh ag an ; J es si ca Go ha ga n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

The Cin ci nn at i In su ran ce Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 24 , 20 15 Fil ed : J an ua ry

6, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , GRUENDER and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Jo hn an d Je ss ic a Goh ag an ap pe al t h e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary 1 jud gm en t to The Ci nc in na ti In su ran ce Co m pa ny (“ Ci nc in na ti ”). The di st ric t co ur t

The Hon or ab le Sara h W

. Hay s, Ch ie f Mag is tr a t e Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, to who m th e cas e was refe rred for fin al di sp os it io n b y co ns en t of th e p art ie s p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 63 6( c).he ld th at , ev en if bo th th e Bu si ne ss Owner s Pack ag e ( “BO P ” ) a nd Co m m erci al
Gen eral Liab il it y ( “CGL”) po li ci es is su ed by Ci nc in na ti co ve red Mr. Goh ag an ’s in jury, th e te rm s of th os e po li ci es pr oh ib it ed a si ng le in jury fro m gi vi ng ris e to m or e th an th e $1 ,00 0,0 00 in co ve rag e be ne fit s th e Goh ag an s ha d al rea d y r e c e i v ed un de r th e CGL po li cy

. On ap pe al
, th e Goh ag an s arg ue th a t t h e y are en ti tl ed to co ve rag e

un de r bo th th e BOP an d CGL po li ci es an d th at th e po li ci es ’ an ti -s ta ck in g pr ov is io ns 2

are am bi gu ou s an d th eref

or e m us t be co ns tru ed to al lo w co ve rag e up to th e $1 ,00 0,0 00 each -o ccu rren ce li m it of bo th po li ci es , fo r a t ot al of $2 ,00 0,0 00 of

co ve rag e. Fo r th e rea so ns set for th be lo w, we affi rm

.

I.

In Ja nu ary 20 12
, Tho m as Cam pb el l at te m

pt ed to rem ov e a tre e fro m a pr op ert y be in g de ve lo pe d fo r a res id en ti al su bd iv is io n. The tre e fel l on Jo hn Goh ag an , wh o

su ffer ed se rio us in

juri es as a res ul t. Mr. Goh ag an as se rte d cl ai m s ag ai ns t Cam pb el l fo r th e in juri es , a nd Mrs . Go ha ga n so ug ht co m pe ns at io n fro m

Cam pb el l fo r lo ss of

co ns or ti um

. The G o h a g a ns reac he d a se tt le m en t wit h Cam pb el l, whi ch in cl ud ed Ci nc i n n a t i ’s pa y m en t of th e $1 ,00 0,0 00 pe r-o ccu rren ce li m it un de r th e Ci nc in na ti

is su ed CGL po li cy he ld by Cam pb el l an d hi s wife

. Howev er, th e Goh ag an s res erv ed

t h e r i g h t to li ti ga te whe th er Cam pb el l’s BOP po li cy , whi ch al so ha d a $1 ,00 0,0 0 0 each -o ccu rren ce l im it , pro vi de d a dd it io na l co ve rag e.

Alt ho ug h th e pa rti es st ip ul at ed to th e fact th at th e BOP po li cy was in effe ct whe n Mr. Goh ag an was in jure d, Cin ci nn at i con te nd ed th at th e BOP pol ic y ’s bo di ly in jury li ab il it y co ve rag e di d no t ap pl y to Mr. Goh ag an be cau se th e in jury di d no t ari se

“ ‘Stack in g’ refe rs to an in su red ’s ab il it y to ob ta in m ul ti pl e in su ran ce co ve rag e 2 be ne fit s fo r an in

jury ei th er fro m m or e th an on e po li cy

. . . or fro m m ul ti pl e co ve rag es pr ov id ed fo r wit hi n a si ng le po li cy .” Dau gh he te e v. St at e Far m Mut

. Aut o. In s. Co

. , 74 3 F.3 d 11 28
, 11 31 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti n g N i sw on ge r v. Far m Bur ea u To wn & Co un tr y In s. Co . of

Mo. , 99 2 S .W .2d 30 8, 3 13 (Mo . App . 19 99 )).

-2

-ou t of Cam

pb el l’s own ers hi p, mai n t e na nc e, or us e of cert ai n bu si ne ss pr em is es in
W ay ne sv il le
, Mi ss ou ri, as th e BOP po li cy req ui red

. Ci nc in na ti al so arg ue d th at , ev en if th e BOP po li cy were a p p l i c a b l e, th e BOP an d CGL po li ci es ’ an ti -s ta ck in g
pr ov is io ns li m it ed co ve rag e to th e $ 1,0 00 ,00 0 a lre ad y pa id by Cin ci nn at i u nd er t he CGL po li cy

.

The Goh ag an s an d Ci nc in na ti su bm it te d a joi nt co m pl ai nt fo r de cl arat or y ju dg m en t to th e di st ric t co ur t. The st ip ul at io n of fact s na rro wed th e is su es f o r de te rm in at io n to th e fo ll owi ng : (1 ) whe th er co ve rag e un de r t h e B O P po li cy was li m it ed to bo di ly in

jury ari si ng ou t of th e own ers hi p, m ai nt en an ce, or us e of th e
sp eci fie d W ay ne sv il le pr em is es an d (2 ) whe th er th e BOP a n d C G L p ol ic ie s’ an ti

st ack in g pr ov is io ns pr oh ib it ed co ve rag e st ack ing
, the reby li m it in g th e co m bi ne d to ta l of th e ap pl ic ab le each -o ccu rren ce li m it of li ab i li ty to $1 ,00 0,0 00

. Afte r fil in g th e joi nt st ip ul at io n of fact s, bo th pa rti es m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d th e di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d Ci nc in na ti ’s m ot io n. The d is tri ct co ur t de te rm in ed th at fact is su es as
to th e effe ct iv e d at e o f th e BOP pol ic y ’s ge og rap hi c-l im it at io n pro vi si on pr ev en te d

su m m ary jud gm en t on th e fir st is su e. The co ur t in st ead ba se d it s su m m ary-j ud gm en t
gr an t on th e se co nd is su e, fin di ng th at th e la ng ua ge of t h e BOP an d CGL po li ci es
pr oh ib it ed th e st ack in g of co ve rag e whe n bo th po li ci es co ve red th e sa m e in jury. The

po li ci es th us li m it ed th e m ax im um c o v e r a ge fo r an y on e oc cu rren ce to th e each

oc cu rren ce li m it of $1 ,00 0,0 00

. The Goh ag an s ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s on bo th is su es

.

II.

W e rev ie w bo th th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t an d it s in te rp ret at io n of th e in su ran ce po li ci es de no vo

. No rt hl an d C as . C o. v. Meeks , 5 40
F.3 d 86 9, 87 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te on ly whe n, vi ewin g th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty, th ere is no ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact
, an d th e m ov in g pa rty is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. Fed

.

-3

-R. Ci v. P. 56 (c); Rai ne s v. Sa fe co In s. Co

. of

Am.
, 63 7 F.3 d 87 2, 87 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ).

“ In te rp ret at io n of an in su ran ce po li cy is a m at te r of st at e la w.” Pro gr es si ve N. In s. Co

. v. McDo no ug h
, 60 8 F.3 d 38 8, 39 0 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng St an Ko ch & So ns Tr uc ki ng , In c. v. Gre at W

. Ca s. Co

. , 51 7 F

. 3 d 1 0 3 2
, 10 39 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). Here, Mi ss ou ri la w ap pl ie s, as Mi ss ou ri is th e fo ru m st at e, an d ne it h e r pa rty ha s rai se d a ch oi ce-o f-l aw cl ai m

. Se e id

.

Bec au se th e Goh ag an s ha ve al ready re ce ive d $1, 000, 000 fr om Ci nc inn at i under th e CGL po li cy , th ei r ap pe al fai ls if th e BOP an d CGL po li ci e s ’ an ti -s ta ck in g
pr ov is io ns li m it th e co m bi ne d to ta l of co ve rag e fo r Mr. Goh ag an ’s in jury t o $1 ,00 0,0 00

. “ The in te rp ret at io n of an in su ran ce po li cy i s a qu es ti on of la w,” McCo rma ck Bar on Mgmt

. Se rv s., In c. v. Am. Gua ra nt ee & Li ab

. In s. Co

. , 98 9 S.W .2d
16 8, 17 1 (Mo

. 19 99 ), to whi ch Mi ss ou ri co ur ts ap pl y ge ne ral co nt ract -in te rp ret at io n
pr in ci pl es , To dd v. Mo. Unit ed Sc h. Ins

. Co un ci l
, 22 3 S.W .3d 15 6, 16 0 (Mo

. 20 07 ).
In di sp ut es ov er th e m ean in g of co nt ract la ng ua ge , “ [t]he ke y is whe th er th e co nt ract la ng u ag e is am

bi gu ou s or un am

bi gu ou s.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Pete rs v. Emp’r s Mut

. Ca s. Co

. , 85 3 S.W .2d 30 0, 30 2 (Mo

. 19 93 )). The ex e r ci se of in te rp ret in g an in su ran ce
p o l i c y req ui res th at we “ as cert ai n th e in te nt io n of th e pa rti es an d

. . . gi ve ef f e c t t o th at in te nt io n.” Se cu ra In s. v. Hor iz on Plu mbi ng , I nc

. , 6 70 F.3 d 85 7, 86 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng J.E. Hat hma n, In c. v

. S i g m a Alp ha Eps il on Cl ub
, 49 1 S.W .2d 26 1,
26 4 (Mo . b an c 19 73 )). The in te nt io n of th e pa rti es “ is pr es um pt iv el y ex pr es se d by th e ‘pla in an d or di na ry m ean in g’ of th e po li cy ’s pr ov is io ns ,” id

. (q uo ti ng Mo. Emp’r s Mut

. In s. Co

. v. N

i c h ol s , 14 9 S.W .3d 61 7, 62 5 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 04 )), “ whi ch [we] read ‘in th e co nt ex t of th e po li cy a s a who le ,’ ” id

. (q uo ti ng Am. St at es In s. Co

. v. Mat hi s , 97 4 S.W .2d 64 7, 6 4 9 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 98 )). “ In co ns tru in g co nt ract ua l

pr ov is io n s , th is co ur t is to av oi d an in te rp ret at io n th at ren de rs ot he r pr ov is io ns

m ean in gl es s.” No dawa

y Val le y Ban k v. E.L. Cr aw

fo rd Co ns tr
., In c. , 12 6 S.W .3d 82 0,
82 7 (M o. Ct . App . 20 04 ).

-4

-In th is ap pe al
, th e Goh ag an s rai se two arg um en ts in an at te m pt to es ta bl is h th at
t h e B O P an d CGL po li ci es are am bi gu ou s as to th e ex te nt of co ve rag e. Su ch

am bi gu it y , th e G o h ag an s arg ue , wou ld co m pe l th e co ur t to co ns tru e th e di sp ut ed

po li cy la ng ua ge ag ai ns t Ci nc in na ti
, th e in su rer. Se e Rice v. Sh el te r Mut

. In s. Co

. , 30 1 S.W .3d 43
, 47 (Mo

. 20 09 ) (“ Am bi gu ou s po li cy la ng ua ge m us t be co ns tru ed ag ai ns t th e in su rer.” ).

The Goh ag an s fir st arg ue th at th e an ti -s ta ckin g pr ov is io ns of th e BOP an d CGL
po li ci es are am

bi gu ou s, pa r t i c u l a r ly wit h res pe ct to th e m ean in g of “ ag gr eg at e

m ax imu m l i mi t of in su ran ce.” The BOP po li cy ’s an ti -s ta ck in g pr ov is io n, la be le d

“ Two o r Mo re Po li ci es Iss ue d b y Us,” p ro vi de s:

If t hi s p ol ic y

an d a ny oth er p ol ic y

is su ed to y ou by us o r an y co m pa ny affi li at ed wit h us ap pl y to th e sa m e “occu rren ce” or “ pe rs on al an d ad ve rti si ng in

jury” of fen se , th e ag

gr eg at e max imu m li mit of in su ra nc e
un de r al l th e po li ci es sh a l l n o t ex ceed th e hi gh es t ap pl ic ab le li m it of in su ran ce u nd er an y

on e p ol ic y

.
(em ph as is ad de d)

. In tu rn , th e an ti -s ta ck in g pr ov is io n of th e CGL po li cy , al so la be le d

“ Two o r Mo re Co ve rag e Fo rm s o r Po li ci es Iss ue d b y Us,” p ro vi de s:

If th i s Co ve rag e Part an d an y ot he r Co ve rag e Fo rm , Co ve rag e Part or po li cy is su ed to y ou by us or an y co m pa ny affi li at ed wit h us ap pl y to th e
sa m e “ oc cu rr en ce” or “ pe rs on al an d ad ve rti si ng in jury” of fen se , th e ag gr eg at e max imu m li mit of in s u r a n c e un de r al l th e Co ve rag e Fo rm s, Co ve rag e Part s or po li ci es sh al l no t ex ceed th e hi gh es t ap pl ic ab le li m it of in su ran ce u nd er an y

on e Co ve rag e Fo rm , Cov erag e Par t o r po li cy

.
(em ph as is ad de d) . The de cl arat io ns pa ge s of bo th th e BOP an d CGL po li ci es refe r
to an “ Each Occu rren ce Lim it ” of $1 ,00 0,0 00 a n d a “Ge ne ral Agg reg at e Lim it ” of $2 ,00 0,0 00

. Howev er, ne it he r po li cy pr ov id es a de fin it io n fo r “ ag gr eg at e m ax im um li m it of i ns ur an ce.”

-5

-The Goh ag an s arg ue th at , wit ho ut a de fin it io n ex pr es se d in th e po li cy, a n

or di na ry pu rch as er wou ld un de rs ta nd “ ag gr eg at e m ax im um li m it of in su ran ce” to refe r to th e $2 ,00 0,0 00 ge ne ral ag gr eg at e li m it

. Und er su ch a read in g, each of th e two
po li ci es wou ld affo rd se pa rat el y $1 ,00 0,0 00 of co ve rag e fo r Mr. G o h a g a n ’s in jury

pu rs ua nt to th e each -o ccu rren ce li m it
, fo r a to ta l of $2 ,00 0,0 00 of c ov erag e. Ci nc in na ti co un te rs th at th e “ ag gr eg at e m ax im um li m it of in su ran ce” is “ th e su m of al l avai la bl e co ve rag e

. . . , th e hi gh es t app li cab le li m it of in su ran ce” un de r an y on e Ci nc in na ti -is su ed po li cy

. Thu s, Ci nc in na ti arg ue s, “ th e hi gh es t ap pl ic a b l e li m it of in su ran ce is th e $1 ,00 0,0 00 th at Ci nc in na ti ha s al read y pa id un de r th e CGL po li cy .”
W hi le co nc ed in g th at Ci nc in na ti ’s in te rp ret at ion is “ reas on ab le ,” th e Goh ag an s as se rt th at th e ex is te nc e of two reas on ab le in te rp re ta ti on s ev id en ces a la ck of cl ari ty th at ob li ga te s u s t o re so lv e th e am bi gu it y ag ai ns t Ci nc in na ti

.

W e se e n o a mb i g ui ty he re. “ An am bi gu it y ex is ts whe n th ere is du pl ic it y , in di st in ct ne ss , or un cert ai nt y in th e m ean in g of th e la ng ua ge in th e po li cy

. Lan gu ag e is am bi gu ou s if it is reas on ab ly op en to di ffer en t co ns tru ct io ns .” Uni te d Fir e & Ca s. Co . v. Tit an Co nt ra ct or

s Se rv ., In c. , 7 51 F.3 d 88 0, 88 3- 84 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Jo ne s v. Mid

-Cen tu ry In s. Co

. , 2 8 7 S.W .3d 68 7, 69 0 (Mo

. 20 09 )). “ A co nt ract or
pr ov is io n

. . . is no t am

bi gu ou s m erel y be cau se th e pa rti es di sa gr ee ov er it s m ean in g.” Atl as Rese rv e Temp s., In c. v. Van li ne r In s. Co

. , 51 S.W

. 3 d 83
, 87 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 01 ).

Here, th e an ti -s ta ck in g pr ov is io ns vi ewed in th ei r en ti r et y are un am bi gu ou s. By fo cu si ng so le ly on “ ag gr eg at e m ax im um li m it of in su ran ce,” th e Goh ag an s ig no re th e st ip ul at io n th at th e ag gr eg a t e m ax im um li m it “ sh al l no t ex ceed th e hi gh es t
ap pl ic ab le li m it of in su ran ce un de r an y o n e po li cy .” In th is cas e, th e tre e-fa ll in g in ci de nt th at res ul te d in Mr. Goh ag an ’s in jury rep res en ts th e “ oc cu

rr en ce ” fr om w hich

ou r in te rp ret at io n of th e po li ci es flo ws. Bo th po li ci es ha ve an each -o ccu rren ce li m it of $1 ,00 0,0 00

. Fo r th e oc cu rren ce at i s s u e , th en , th e “ hi gh es t ap pl ic ab le li m it of in su ran ce” un de r ei th er in di vi du al po li cy is eq ui va le nt to th e each -o ccu rren ce li m it

.

-6

-Thu s, th e ag gr eg at e m ax im um li m it of in su ran ce un de r bo th po li ci es co m bi ne d m ay

no t exce ed th e each -o ccu rren ce lim it un de r ei th er po li cy —i n t hi s ca se , $1 ,00 0,0 00

. Se e Smi th v. W

au sa u Und er wr it er

s In s. Co

. , 97 7 S.W .2d 29 1
, 29 4 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 98 ) (ap pl y in g an an ti -s ta ck in g cl au se ne arl y id en ti cal to th os e at is su e he re to li m it th e “ ag gr eg at e m ax im

um li m it of li ab il it y ” un de r two po li ci es is su ed by th e in su ran ce

co m pa ny or affi li at e to an am ou nt “n ot ex ceed [in g] th e hi gh es t ap pl ic ab le li m it of li ab il it y ” un de r ei th er po li cy ). Rea di ng th e an ti -s ta ck in g pr ov is io ns as a who le
, se e Se cu ra In s. , 67 0 F.3 d at 86 1
, th e Goh ag an s th eref or e rece iv ed th e fu ll am ou nt of

co ve rag e owe d to th em un de r th e BOP an d CGL po li ci es whe n Ci nc in na ti pa id th em $1 ,00 0,0 00 pu rs ua nt to th e CGL po li cy

.

Th e Goh ag an s ne xt co nt en d th at , e ve n if th e an ti -s ta ck in g pr ov is io ns are no t

am bi gu ou s, th e BOP an d CGL po li c i e s s t il l are am bi gu ou s be cau se th e “ Oth er In su ran ce” pr ov is io n in each po li cy es ta bl is he s co ve rag e t h at th e an ti -s ta ck in g
pr ov is io n re sc in ds . Thes e “ Oth er In su ran ce” p ro vi si on s re ad as f ol lo ws:

Thi s i n s u ran ce is pr im ary ex cep t [in ci rcu m st an ces no t rel ev an t he re]. If thi s in su ran ce is pri m ary, ou r ob li ga ti on s are not affe ct ed un le ss an y of th e ot he r in su ran ce is al so pr im ary. The n, we wil l sh are wit h al l th at ot he r in su ran ce b y

th e m et ho d d es cri be d i n c . bel ow.

Sect io n c ., in tu rn , set s fo rth th e fo ll owi ng “ Met ho d o f Sh ari ng ”:

If al l of th e ot he r in su ran ce pe rm it s co nt rib ut io n by eq ua l sh ares , we wil l fo ll ow th is m et ho d al so

. Und er th is ap pr oa ch ea ch in su re r co nt ri bu te s eq ua l amo un ts un ti l it ha s pa id it s ap pl ic ab le li mit of in su ra nc e or no ne of th e lo ss rem ai ns , whi ch ev er co m es fir st

.
(em ph as is ad de d)

. The se “ Oth er I n s u ran ce” cl au se s, th e Goh ag an s arg ue , affi rma ti ve ly pr ov id e pr im ary co ve rag e un de r each po li cy , su ch th at each po li cy

-7

-pr ov id es for pa y m en t i n s ha res eq ua l to th os e pa id un de r an y ot he r po li cy . In o th er

wor ds
, th e Goh ag an s s u b mi t th at th e BOP an d CGL po li ci es in di vi du al ly pr ov id e

“ pr im ary co ve rag e” th at th e an ti -s ta ck in g pr ov is io ns im pe rm is si bl y li m it

. Se e Se eck

v. Geic o Gen. Ins

. Co

. , 21 2 S.W .3d 12 9, 13 4 (Mo

. 20 07 ) (“ W he re, as he re, an ot he r in su ran ce cl au se ap pe ars to pr ov id e co ve rag e bu t o t h er cl au se s in di cat e th at su ch

co ve rag e is no t pr ov id ed
, th en th e po li cy is am bi gu ou s, an d t h e a mb i g ui ty wil l be

res ol ve d i n fa vo r of

co ve rag e fo r th e in su red .”).

The Goh ag an s’ in te rp ret at io n, ho wev er, ag ai n m is ta ke nl y rel ie s on read in g an in di vi du al pr ov is io n in is ol at io n fro m th e res t of the po li cy , an ap pr oa ch th at wou ld le av e th e an ti -s ta ck in g pr ov is io ns m ean in gl es s. The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y de te rm in ed th at th e “ Oth er In su ran ce” pr ov is io ns ap pl y whe n p ol ic ie s co ve rin g t he

sa m e in jury are is su ed by Ci nc in na ti an d an ot he r in su ran ce co m pa ny, no t whe n two
po li ci es are is su ed by Ci nc in na ti

. In st ead
, th e “ Two or Mo re Po li ci es Is su ed by Us”
pr ov is io ns ap pl y whe n po li ci es co ve rin g th e sa m e in jury are is su ed by Ci nc in na ti al on e. The Goh ag an s’ in te rp ret at io n, th e d is tri ct co ur t co nt in ue d, wo ul d re nd er t he

“ Two or Mo re Po li ci es Is su ed by U s” pr ov is io ns m ean in gl es s, an ou tc om e co ur ts se ek

to av oi d whe n in te rp ret in g co nt ract s. No da wa y , 12 6 S.W .3d at 82 7. W e ag ree. The Goh ag an s’ att em

pt s t o c reat e am

bi gu it y wher e n on e ex is ts ha ve fai le d.

III.

Fo r th e reas on s se t fo rth ab ov e, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng th at th e BOP an d CGL po li ci es pr oh ib it st ack in g whe re bo th po li ci es co ve r th e sa m e in jury,

-8

-su ch th at th e m ax im um co ve rag e fo r Mr. Goh ag an ’s in jury is $1 ,00 0,0 00

. W e th us 3
affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o C in ci nn at i.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

As ou r co nc lu si on pr ev en ts th e Goh ag an s fro m rece iv in g m or e t h a n th e 3 $1 ,00 0,0 00 in co ve rag e Ci nc in na ti ha s al read y pa id th em un de r th e CGL po li cy , we
ne ed no t reac h th e is su e of whe th er co ve rag e un de r th e BOP po l i c y w a s li m it ed to bo di ly in jury ari si ng ou t of Cam pb el l’s o wne rs hi p, m ai nt en an ce, or us e of th e W ay ne sv il le pre m is es de si gn at ed in th e p ol ic y

. -9

-