Columbia Insurance Group, Inc., and Columbia Mutual Insurance Co., Inc., Petitioners v. Cenark Proje — Hart, J…

Summary

Justice Hart dissented from the majority's refusal to answer two certified insurance-coverage questions, arguing that the court should either apply its existing precedent or decline certification without deciding an unasked coverage issue. She maintained that the majority exceeded the limited scope of the federal court's certification and improperly addressed a moot or advisory matter. Justice Danielson, dissenting separately, would have answered the certified questions and concluded that the alleged damage to third-party property constituted an occurrence and was not barred by the asserted exclusion.