Montrose Chemical Corp. of California v. Superior Court (Canadian Universal)

United Policyholders submitted multiple letters in support of the petition for review. The letters addressed issues including (a) the important in support of petition for review regarding (a) the important and recurring issue of California insurance law concerning whether and when a policyholder may offer extrinsic evidence to prove that language in an insurance policy that a court has found to be unambiguous in fact is either latently ambiguous or has a special meaning through usage, see Civ. Code, § 1644; as well as (b) whether the exception to the standard form qualified pollution exclusion for a “sudden and accidental” discharge, dispersal, release or escape of pollutants is limited to “abrupt” polluting events.