In its brief, UP focuses on three grounds for reversal of the district court opinion: The District Court failed to interpret the insurance policies as a whole and rendered products liability coverage illusory in Pennsylvania. The District Court’s interpretation of “occurence” contravenes the insured’s reasonable expectations. The underlying complaint contains allegations of damage to other property caused by a product defect, triggering the dutiy to defend. UPdate: Pennsylvania policyholders received a favorable decision in this case, attached below.
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Number 18-2206
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance contract interpretation
- policyholder reasonable expectations