Court Opinion

ID: 6003018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 10:06:57.674888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:12.237055
License: Public Domain

We agree with the motion court that there was no ambiguity and that the broad language of both exclusions at issue unmistakably barred coverage (see, Bendis v Federal Ins. Co., 1989 WL 161437 [US Dist Ct, Kan, Dec. 4, 1989, Saffels, JJ, affd 958 F2d 960). We therefore need not determine whether Federal was obligated to advance defense costs.
*392We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.