Opinion ID: 2327368
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Employers' Arguments in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: Based on the facts alleged in the Destremps' complaint and on certain statements contained in the additional documents that it submitted to the court, Employers contended that the Destremps' property damage claim arose from a single occurrence, which it described as Viking Stone's continuous pattern and practice of allowing water to flow from its property onto the plaintiffs property. Employers contended (1) that, because the alleged continuous discharge is claimed to have resulted in the continual flooding of the plaintiff's property    there was but one, proximate, uninterrupted, continuous cause resulting in the underlying plaintiffs damages; and (2) that that one cause occurred before Employers began to insure Viking Stone viz., at some time between 2001 and 2003. Although according to the Destremps' complaint (as Employers construed it), the flooding had continued after the end of the Arbella policy period and into the Employers policy period, Employers asserted that, as long as the flood damage arose from one proximate cause, there would nonetheless be a single occurrence for the purpose of insurance coverage; and it asserted that that occurrence clearly did not take place during the Employers policy period. Employers noted (1) that the insurance policies of both Employers and Arbella defined a single occurrence as including continuous exposure to `substantially the same general harmful conditions' and (2) that, therefore, the policies unambiguously provide coverage for injury taking place over a period of time. Employers asserted that there was no way to distinguish between individual instances of water discharge, and it stated that the Destremps did not point to individual instances of water discharge, but rather they alleged continuous flooding of their property. Employers contended that, because it was only obligated to pay on a per occurrence basis, regardless of whether there was further injury during [Employers'] policy period, there was still only one cause or `occurrence,' which resulted in continuous property damage and therefore it was not obligated to indemnify or defend Viking Stone. E