Opinion ID: 1506273
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Seeking damages which are payable under the terms of this policy.

Text: As discussed earlier, the ANI polices were third-party liability policies not designed to reimburse the insureds for clean-up and capital improvements to the insured property. Although the PRP letters alleged increased levels of radionuclides on adjacent properties, they did not allege any damage to adjacent properties from that fact  and the EPA eliminated that finding from its Administrative Order by Consent issued four months later. Therefore, the CERCLA proceedings did not seek any damages payable under the terms of ANI's policies. The qualifying phrase, `to which this insurance applies' underscores the basic notion that the premium paid by the insured does not buy coverage for all property damage but only for that type of damage provided for in the policy. Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., 81 N.J. 233, 405 A.2d 788, 790 (1979) (CGL insurer had no duty to defend suit against insured mason which only claimed faulty masonry work, not bodily injury or property damage). See also Lenning v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 574, 581 (6th Cir.2001) (denying claim for cost of defense because Tapp's complaint did not allege the type of claims that would be covered by the policy. In addition, the language of the complaint reveals that any potential coverage was abrogated by two explicit coverage exclusions.) (construing Kentucky law). Since the CERCLA proceedings did not seek any damages covered by ANI's policies, ANI had no duty to provide a defense to those proceedings. To hold otherwise would be akin to holding that an automobile insurer had a duty to defend a suit brought against its insured alleging that the plaintiff sustained damages as a result of being bitten by the insured's dog.