Opinion ID: 3015321
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A Single Occurrence.

Text: Liberty Mutual contends that all of the asbestos claims arise from a single occurrence, and Treesdale argues that the asbestos claims arise from multiple occurrences, i.e., each claimant’s exposure to asbestos. The district court applied the 5 “Disposition of an insurance action on summary judgment is appropriate, when, as here, there are no material underlying facts in dispute.” J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co. v. Pilosi, 393 F.3d 356, 360 (3d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “The interpretation of the scope of coverage of an insurance contract is a question of law properly decided by the court, a question over which this court exercises plenary review.” Id. (citation and internal brackets omitted). 7 “cause of loss” test to resolve this dispute. It found that the cause of the injury was “the manufacture and sale of the asbestos-containing products.” The court held that “the policy language is clear and unambiguous that the injuries arising from this common source must be treated as a single occurrence.” Treesdale claims that the district court’s holding that all of the asbestos claims arise from a single occurrence was error, and argues that the asbestos claims arise from multiple occurrences – each claimant’s exposure to Treesdale’s asbestos-containing product.6 The essence of Treesdale’s argument is that the cause of loss test does not apply to asbestos claims being asserted against an insured in a coverage dispute regarding the number of occurrences. We first applied the cause of loss test in Appalachian Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 676 F.2d 56 (3d Cir. 1982). There, a class action was filed against Liberty Mutual for sex discrimination based upon certain employment practices instituted Liberty Mutual had instituted in 1965. After the suit was settled, Liberty Mutual sought indemnification from 6 Treesdale does not argue that the applicable policy language is ambiguous and that it is therefore necessary to remand to the district court to resolve that ambiguity. Rather, Treesdale argues that its reading of the language is the only reasonable reading and that Liberty Mutual’s reading is unreasonable because the language cannot support Liberty Mutual’s interpretation. Reply Br. at 2 n.1. 8 Appalachian, its insurer. Under the applicable policy, Appalachian agreed to indemnify Liberty (subject to certain limitations) for: [A]ll sums which the Assured (Liberty) shall be obligated to pay by reason of the liability