Summary
holding that an identical pollution exclusion clause was unambiguous
Summary of this case from Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Kenworthy OilOpinion
No. 94-6436.
October 27, 1995.
W.D.Okl.
AFFIRMED
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. St. Clair Lime Co.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Oct 27, 1995
69 F.3d 547 (10th Cir. 1995)
Summaries of
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. St. Clair Lime Co.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Oct 27, 1995
69 F.3d 547 (10th Cir. 1995)
holding that an identical pollution exclusion clause was unambiguous
Summary of this case from Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Kenworthy Oilnoting that courts have traditionally defined "products" for purposes of PCOH provisions as the "goods or services which the insured deals in as his stock or trade"
Summary of this case from Colo. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brock USA LLCnoting that courts have traditionally defined ‘products' for purposes of the completed operations exclusion as the “goods or services which the insured deals in as his stock or trade”
Summary of this case from Szczeklik v. Markel Int'l Ins. Co.Case details for
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. St. Clair Lime Co.
Case Details
Full title:Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. St. Clair Lime Co
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Date published: Oct 27, 1995
Citations
69 F.3d 547 (10th Cir. 1995)
Citing Cases
West American v. Band Desenberg
The majority of courts that have reviewed these absolute exclusions have found them to be unambiguous and…
Szczeklik v. Markel Int'l Ins. Co.See Hydro Systems, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 929 F.2d 472, 475 (9th Cir.1991) (“[s]everal courts have…