Allianz Global Risks v. ACE Property & Casualty Ins. Co.

Summary

The court held that evidence supported the jury’s finding that Daimler expressly or impliedly assumed Freightliner’s contingent liabilities, so the directed-verdict motion was properly denied. It further held that the insurers’ policy obligations, including the effect of policy endorsements, must be determined by the trial court from the policies and complaints, without relying on side agreements or other extrinsic evidence. The court held that the pollution-exclusion phrase “sudden, unintended, and unexpected” was ambiguous and required a legal interpretation favoring coverage before submission to the jury, and it remanded for further proceedings. No separate opinions were filed.