Conagra Foods, Inc., Plaintiff Below-Appellant v. Lexington Insurance Co., Defendant Below-Appellee

Summary

The Court held that the policy's lot-or-batch provision is ambiguous because it reasonably supports both a coverage-limiting interpretation and a coverage-expanding interpretation. Because the coverage-expanding interpretation would trigger coverage after ConAgra satisfied the $3 million retained limit for a general liability occurrence, Lexington's duty to defend was triggered, although ultimate indemnity coverage remained unresolved. The Court reversed and remanded for consideration of extrinsic evidence concerning the parties' intent and, if necessary, application of contra proferentem. Steele, Chief Justice, and Newell, Judge, dissenting, would have held the provision unambiguous and affirmed summary judgment for Lexington.