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 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 coverage remained for the Superior Court to determine after considering extrinsic evidence. The Court reversed and remanded for that determination; Steele, Chief Justice, and Newell, Judge, dissenting, would have affirmed because they viewed the policy as unambiguous and requiring a separate $5 million retained limit for each seven-day production run.