Defendants also argue that in construing an insurance contract, the policy should be interpreted in accord with the reasonable expectations of the insured. In the present case, both defendants testified that they believed they were covered. Defendants additionally argue that the general rules of construction of an insurance policy require that exclusions be interpreted narrowly while coverage clauses must be interpreted broadly to provide the greatest possible protection to the insured. See Nationwide Mut. 121 N.C. App.
Defendants first argue that there was an occurrence because the alleged harm here was accidental.
N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Defendants next argue that the harm is within the policy definitions of property damage and bodily injury. First, defendants argue that severe emotional distress is bodily injury and therefore is covered. Second, defendants contend that nuisance is included within the policy definition of property damage because the allegation is that the Kaplans lost the use and enjoyment of their home. Whiteville Oil Co., Inc. v. Federated Mut.