Opinion ID: 1506273
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the ANI policies were triggered for the full amount of the limits in effect at any time the property damage at issue was caused without pro-rating the liability

Text: In its cross-appeal, Westinghouse Hittman Nuclear Incorporated and Hittman Nuclear & Development Corporation (collectively referred to as Hittman), argue the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's decision to pro-rate the amount of insurance available to cover its losses. Cross-appellees, ANI, argue the ANI policies were not triggered for the full amount of the limits. They believe the circuit court correctly allocated the damage over time periods and then correctly applied the policy limits in effect during that time period to the amounts so allocated. The trial court held that the cause of the property damage on and off Maxey Flats was ongoing and continuous during the various policy periods. Therefore, the Trial Court pro-rated coverage since the damage was not divisible or allocable during and between the policy periods. We adopt the reasoning of the Court of Appeal's opinion regarding this issue of pro-ration as we agree that Hittman's cited authorities do not carry their proclaimed weight when dealing with the instant case involving one insurer, a single liability policy (the Facility Form) and a single excess policy (the S & T policy). As such, we affirm the Court of Appeal's decision on this issue. LAMBERT, C.J., GRAVES, JOHNSTONE and WINTERSHEMINER, JJ., concur. COOPER, J., dissents by separate opinion with ROACH, J., joining that opinion except for its reliance on Section 2 of the Constitution of Kentucky.