*1 quately explain district court could evaluate the fairness of its reason for the fee fees, attorneys’ was substantial.” 192 F.3d award and because the fee award not does Cir.1999). (9th 1323, 1329 comply requirements with the juris- of our prudence. We will also vacate the District fact, this it Recognizing was the denying Court’s order attorneys’ fees to our Trust which called attention to the the Trust and remand for reconsideration many aspects Kirby’s fee award which in light of the foregoing we have and which discussion and discussed we have opinion. requires by found reconsideration the Dis- Court,
trict we would be remiss if we did acknowledge this benefit29 and remand attorneys’
the Trust’s claims for its own
fees to the District Court for reconsidera- together Kirby’s application.
tion with fee course, require
Of this will the necessary by
submissions the Trust’s attorneys to comply procedures. with fee normal Un- NEW CASTLE COUNTY circumstances, der these we think appro- DE, Appellant, priate for the District Court evaluate the value of the benefit of the Trust’s (to contribution to the ultimate fee be de- NATIONAL UNION FIRE remand) by cided the District Court on INSURANCE COMPANY compensate and to the Trust to that ex- PITTSBURGH, OF PA.
tent.30 No. 00-5157. In so holding, fully we are aware that agreed Cendant had not to contest United States of Appeals, Court award of part fees as of its settlement Third Circuit. agreement. acknowledge We also that the Argued Oct. 2000. return to any Cendant of rights unclaimed may well enhance the value of Cendant’s Filed March 2001. rights to its rights shareholders and bene- ficiaries.
IV.
Although we will not disturb the settle-
ment itself which has not been challenged appeal,
on will we vacate the award of
attorneys’ fees to Kirby and remand this
case to the District Court for a reevalua-
tion of the fees, amount of attorneys’
because the District Court did not ade- 29. It First, bears mention that appellate the Trust's two reasons. the District Court's deci- urged Kirby's brief fees be reduced denying sion fees to the Trust's counsel stands million, $19 $7.6 million to Appellant's {see insofar as argument it related to the by raised Brief, 30), figure similar to the one at counsel before the District Court. We re- which we independently. arrived mand the issue of the Trust’s counsel’s fee request to the respect District Court with brief, appellate In its Kirby suggests Trust’s effect on through the settlement may Second, appeal. the Trust standing not have appeal we have repeatedly em- District phasized Court’s request opinion denial of the importance fee be- in this counsel, cause it was the Trust's reviewing not the court’s role Trust counsel's fees in itself, actions, request that made that in the District class and we believe this role extends jurisdictional Court. argument, though hearing to the District application a fee merit, not without need not concern us point. the Trust's counsel at this *3 Poole, Walsh, Jr., E.
Richard Peter J. (Argued), Potter, Corroon, Anderson & DE, Wilmington, Counsel for Appellant. Christopher Sipe J. (Argued), Bailey & Wetzel, DE, Wilmington, Ap- Counsel for pellee. Troy,
Daniel
Wiley,
E.
Rein & Fielding,
DC,
Washington,
Counsel for Amicus-ap-
pellee
Litigation.
INS ENV
SCIRICA, NYGAARD,
BEFORE:
BARRY,
Judges.
Circuit
from National
to cover
purchased
Union
THE COURT
OF
OPINION
period
July
July
from
1992 to
NYGAARD,
Judge.
Circuit
interpret
us to
appeal requires
parties disagree
whether National
“invasion of
phrase,
obligation
has an
to defend and
Union
law and de-
under Delaware
occupancy,”
indemnify New Castle in a number of law
ambiguous. The
whether
it is
termine
arising
zoning
permitting
suits
policies
widely used
phrase is
Delaware real
decisions.
estate
litiga-
subject
of heated
and has been
Frank Acierno filed the
developer named
over
country
the entire
throughout
tion
complaints,
eventually
first of three
which
Because Delaware
past thirty years.
approximately one million
cost the
precedent, both
provides
law
no clear
case
expenses
to defend.
legal
dollars
outside the
cite numerous decisions
*4
of land within
Acierno owns two tracts
that we
authority suggests
state. Some
County. The first is located
New Castle
gen-
apply
ejusdem
the doctrine of
should
shopping
mall and the second is
near
in relation to
eris and construe
Westhampton.
In
referred to as
(“wrongful evic-
specific terms
the more
plans
Acierno’s
to
New Castle frustrated
entry”) preceding it.
“wrongful
and
tion”
First,
develop
tracts.
it denied a
however,
fly
would
ruling,
Such
mall
and
building permit
property,
for the
unambig-
and declare
face of commonsense
second,
plan
record
for
voided Acierno’s
hundreds
generated
uous a term that has
Westhampton property and instead re-
judicial
widely varying
law suits and
zoned it.
that,
to do
and
interpretations. We refuse
July
Acierno filed his first
On
an “invasion of the
instead hold that
suit,
building
contesting the denial
and
occupancy”
ambiguous
(“Acierno /”).
permit
property
the mall
in favor of New Castle
should be construed
claimed,
§
under 42
He
U.S.C.
the District
County. We therefore reverse
property
him
deprived
had
New Castle
summary judgment.
grant
Court’s
law, and had violat-
process
without due
Equal
ed the
Protection Clause
I.
arbitrarily
Amendment
Fourteenth
political subdivi-
County is a
New Castle
differently than other devel-
treating him
It is re-
of Delaware.
sion of the State
prelim-
granted
District Court
opers. The
for,
things,
per-
sponsible
among other
in favor of Acierno.
inary injunctive relief
property within
zoning
Mitchell,
of real
mitting and
v.
1992 WL
See Acierno
pro-
(D.Del.1992).
reversed, holding
In order to
geographical
its
borders.
We
County
itself,
officials,
ripe
employees
and its
the case was not
because
its
tect
Adjustment
yet
had
to rule on
Board of
practice
common
legal liability, it is
from
Acierno
building permit.
See
purchase
insurance.
for New Castle
(3d Cir.1993).
Mitchell,
$250,000. c. wrongful from, eviction wrong- into, ful entry or invasion the Shortly claims, after Acierno filed his private room, occupancy of a dwelling or attempted the County to contact National premises person that a occupies by or on Union to the poli- discuss POL and CGL owner, behalf lessor; of its or landlord cies. year After almost a of unsuccessful inquiries Castle, by New National Union The District Court held that this definition 25, sent a letter on June stating unambiguous was required County the Acierno’s claims “would not be covered “owner, to act as an landlord or lessor” of under However, policy.” CGL July on Acierno’s property. not, it had Because 9, 1993, National Union indicated that granted court summary judgment would tentatively New undertake Castle’s favor of National Union. The District defense under the policy. POL Its letter Court did not address whether Acierno’s noted, detail, in some that National Union claims constituted an was not waiving rights its to refuse cover- occupancy.” age later. Over the following year, legal New appealed, Castle and we reversed. expenses mounted and in May Na- See New Castle County National Union tional filed Union suit County, (3d Fire Ins. 174 F.3d Cir. seeking a declaration that it was not obli- 1999). We held that “by or on behalf gated to continue New coverage. Castle 10(c) of’ language of Definition ambig was claim, contested the parties but the even- uous and should not be pre construed to tually settled, agreeing buy-out to a clude coverage.2 We therefore remanded officers, jurisdiction but found lacking judgment in re on some Acierno's spect to Upon the current officers. motion outstanding claims. See Acierno v. New Castle Court, banc, for rehearing, sitting en va County, (D.Del.2000). C.A.No. 92-385 decision, cated panel held that there was
jurisdiction over
2. The
disagreed
current and former offi
over which words the
cers, and
disputed
reversed the
language
District Court's denial
modified. National Union
summary
judgment
argued
to them. See
language
Acierno v.
wrong-
modified the
Cloutier,
(3d Cir.1994).
F.3d
eviction,
interpretation,
Dis
ful acts. Under its
an
trict Court conducted
proceedings,
entry,
further
or
invasion must be committed
23, 2000,
and May
on
“owner,
it granted summary
premises.
landlord or lessor”
grant
New
Our review of the District Court’s
whether
Cas-
the case to determine
summary judgment
plenary.
See New
an
actions could constitute
alleged
tie’s
342;
County, 174 F.3d
Castle
of [Acierno’s]
“invasion
Pacific
(3d
Linn,
Indem. Co. v.
The District
Id. at 352.
occupancy.”
Cir.1985).
remand,
Court,
against the
again ruled
on
summary judgment
County, granting
A. Delaware Insurance Law
It held that the
of National Union.
favor
This is the second time that we
language
the “invasion”
plain meaning of
allegedly ambiguous lan
have reviewed
sug-
that its context
ambiguous,
was
but
10(c)
poli
guage in Definition
of the CGL
to encom-
it “should be construed
gested
County,
174 F.3d at
cy. See
Castle
general
of the same
pass only those actions
previous panel’s
344-51. The
discussion
‘wrongful
or class as
eviction’
type
”
pertaining
poli
Delaware law
to insurance
Acierno failed
‘wrongful entry.’ Because
interpretation
starting point
is a
cy
good
eviction,
or
wrongful entry,
allege
analysis:
our
injury, the District Court held that
similar
to defend
obligated
Before an insurer is
apply.
did not
New Castle
the CGL
indemnify policyholder,
the insured
appealed.
coverage is avail-
must demonstrate that
policy.
duty
under the
An insurer’s
able
II.
duty
than
to defend is broader
its
premised upon
di
Jurisdiction
which
indemnify, but ‘is limited to suits
Therefore,
must
versity
citizenship.
we
assert claims for which it has assumed
apply the
law of Delaware.
substantive
liability
policy.’
under
‘[W]here
Tompkins, 304 U.S.
Erie R.R. v.
there exists some doubt as to whether
(1938).
751
employed
haps
commonly
strategy
applicable only
persons
most
strued as
or
phrase
in which the
things
general
to examine the context
of the same
nature or
(it
always
is used
almost
follows some vari-
class as those enumerated....
[S]ueh
“wrongful
“wrongful
ation of
eviction” and
rule is based on the obvious reason that
entry”).
cite the Latin maxim
if
States
intended that
general
was
words
“ejusdem generis,” a tool of
in
construction
should be used
their unrestricted
sense,
applies when a general
term or
no mention would have been
particular
an
made of the
specific
follows
enumeration of
classes.
Ejusdem generis
requires
offenses.4
Serv.,
Triple
See also
Railcar
C
Inc. v.
general phrase
courts to construe the
nar- City
Wilmington, 630 A.2d
629,
631
rowly,
only
so that it relates
to offenses of
(Del.1993). Applying ejusdem generis
specifically
the same kind or class as those
would limit the
occupancy
Supreme
enumerated. As the Delaware
offenses,
similar to eviction or wrongful
clearly
eighty years
articulated over
entry, that include a violation of the claim
State,
ago Donaghy
696,
A.
707
100
possessory
interest ant’s
property.
real
(Del.1917):
Groshong
v. Mutual
Ins.
of Enumclaw
Co.,
ejusdem generis
303, 312-14,
The doctrine of
...
is a
329 Or.
Acierno’s principle generis, rather than ejusdem interest, adopting ap- this possessory his proferentem, contra adheres to the re- us to rule favor of proach require would interpreted quirement that words be in the National Union. greater fidelity proper context and ensures however, distinction, critical There is a disputed meaning term and the case and most of deci- between this the intentions of the to the insur- ejusdem generis. Almost apply that sions n. ance contract.”6 Amicus brief at 19 5. precedent invoking the Latin all of the however, begs question, the of wheth- policies in- that maxim involve applying ejusdem generis er in this case “other invasion of the phrase clude the help parties’ clarify would intentions. private occupancy.” Some courts right of 5850, *2 Crowley, WL See White (“As presence on the explicitly have focused (Del.Super.1986) with all rules stat- construction, utory [ejusdem generis] does the word “other”: apply when the context shows a con- [Tjhis has stated that the rule of court words, trary goal intention. In other generis peculiar- in contracts is ejusdem statutory construction is to find the specific enumeration ly applicable where [contracting parties], intent of the and the word ‘other’ followed precedes statutory merely rules of construction are .... the term ‘oth- general words use of end.”). means toward that Because Na- phrase er’ to connect ‘invasion demonstrate, tional Union has failed to and occupancy’ to the word- believe, applying ejusdem we fail to precedes it us that the ing that satisfies generis required helpful, is or even our parties intended that such invasion also inquiry must continue. pos- that involve a be limited to claims approach, Under the second some states sessory premises. interest in the concluded, reviewing have after the entire- 313-14, Groshong, 329 at 985 P.2d Or. ty policy, of a that an Mutual, 1284; also, e.g., Liberty see private occupancy” is available in a 390; Dryden landlord-tenant context. See Security F.3d at 96 F.3d at Oil Mgmt., England, Co. Inc. v. Travelers ejusdem generis, 264 n. 4 but (applying (1st Indemnity Company, 91 F.3d noting that “would have application its Cir.1996) (“Under law, Massachusetts preceded more force if the word ‘other’ then, phrase ‘other invasion term.”). general issue occupancy’ would mean case does not include the word “other.” ‘other invasion of the [tenant’s] Neither National Union nor private occupancy,’ since an actionable distinction, why the amicus address this ‘wrongful entry or eviction’ claim under Instead, principle applied. should be may Massachusetts law brought only by be states, landlord.”).7 conclusively the amicus without fur- a tenant against a There is proferentem yel disputed language ambiguous. Appel- Contra is another Latin max im, requires ambiguous ("[T]he which con and ig- lant’s brief at 26 District Court fusing policy language be construed proferentem nored doctrine of contra suggests the insurer. The court must choose between amicus admittedly ambiguous policy construed lan- applying contra insured.”) guage against (emphasis add- preferentem ejusdem generis. This is in ed). This is also incorrect. The District Ejusdem generis correct. determine is used to merely "plain meaning” found that the phrase ambiguous. pre- whether a Contra ambiguous. was It then exam- only applies ferentem after a determination language, ejus- applied ined the context of the ambiguity is made. See Penn Mut. Ins. Life generis, meaning dem and held that its was (Del. Oglesby, Co. v. 695 A.2d 1149-50 apply proferen- clear. Before we can tem, contra 1997) ambiguous, C'[I]f the contract ... holding we must first review this principle proferentem of contra dictates that *9 disputed phrase determine whether the was against the contract must be construed the ambiguous. drafter.”). contrast, County, recog distinction, argues nizes this that but nonetheless preferentem 7. See also State Farm Fire & Cas. applied contra Co. Burk should be be hardt, 1343, (M.D.Ala. cause the explicitly F.Supp.2d District Court found 96 1351
753 smaller, A relationship no landlord-tenant this but not insignificant, number However, support of long position. Castle a decisions New case. New cites Castle’s Although approach, less uniform their rejected posi- that have list of cases decisions, these in aggregate, address each Appellant’s at 20 n. 5.- tion. See Brief of First, National Union’s arguments. There no need to discuss each of is these some courts have held that an “invasion of cases, except to note that a number of right private occupancy” of ambigu- is owner, a property states allow like Mr. ous as a matter of law.10 The most factu- Acierno, a claim.8 bring to such ally relevant decisions are those of New Third, some states have held that an Hampshire. Grange Town Goshen v. of right private occupan- of Co., 915, 822, Mut. Ins. 120 N.H. 424 A.2d invasion, cy” requires physical a such as a (1980), property 825 a owner sued a town Builders, trespass. Sterling Inc. v. planning board for refusing to allow him to Co., Cal.App.4th United National Ins. 79 develop a subdivision. He claimed civil (2000) 105, 108-09, Cal.Rptr.2d 93 697 rights 42 § violations under U.S.C. 1983. (“[T]here thing ‘non-physi- is no such as a supreme court of the state held that cal invasion’ of a of right private occupan- the town’s policy, which covered cy. ‘Occupancy’requires physical entry a arising suits from “other invasion of the upon property.”). According real to this right private occupancy,” was unclear. merely line of reasoning, impinging upon a result, As a construed the against right enjoy prop- claimant’s to use or real the insurer and held that coverage extend- erty does not constitute such invasion. ed to damages arising from the board’s See Columbia National Ins. v. Pacesetter “plaintiffs denial of right enjoy- to free Homes, Inc., 1, 1, 248 Neb. 532 N.W.2d 10 property.” ment of his See id. at 824-25. (1995) (“[T]he private right occupancy is Later, the Appeals, First Circuit Court of legal right occupy premises, not the law, applying Hampshire held that right enjoy occupying premis- those “other invasion of right private occu- es.”).9 Acierno not allege physical does a pancy” included harm resulting from “nox- sort, odors, invasion of any and therefore his light” ious noise and that interfered claims would not qualify. with the use of property. See Titan Hold- 2000) law); amicus, (applying According Alabama presence Decorative Ctr. Cas., 257, (Tex. Employers 833 S.W.2d 262 "occupancy” terms indicates that "use” and ("The App.1992) concepts. 'other invasion of the are distinct We find this uncon- private occupancy’ provides coverage vincing. examples presented, In all of the only if there exists a consistently appear together, landlord-tenant relation two words ship, plaintiff property long or if the has concepts. a vested amidst list of other It is right.”). equally legis- reasonable to conclude that the synonyms. lature used two words as See, e.g., Royal 8. Ins. Co. America v. Kirksville Med., Osteopathic 10. See, Co ll. 191 F.3d e.g., Beltway Mgmt. Lexington- v.Co. (8th Cir.1999); Pipefitters 963 Co., Educ. F.Supp. Landmark Ins. Welfare Co., (D.D.C.1990) ("The Fund v. Westchester Fire Ins. 976 F.2d phrase 'other invasion of (7th Cir.1992); Holdings Titan private occupancy’ ambigu Keene, Syndicate, City ous.”); Inc. v. Arkwright Gould Inc. v. Mut. Ins. (1st Cir.1990). (M.D.Pa.1993) 272-73 ("We, F.Supp. therefore, personal injury find that the en argument by coverage ‘wrongful The amicus makes a related dorsement with its en distinguishing occupancy. try' between use and and 'other invasion of the is, (contending occupancy’, See Amicus brief at 10-16 in the context of the entire County’s policy only arising policy, ambiguous.”); Hirschberg covers suits ... v. Lum Cas., occupancy, out of harm to a claimant's F.Supp. bermens Mut. (N.D.Cal.1992) ("At minimum, damages whereas Acierno's suits claim relat- the term use). ing authority, to future For the amicus ‘other invasion of the occu primarily upon pancy’ ambiguous, any ambiguity relies a number of Delaware is to insurer.”) occupancy.” statutes that refer "use or be resolved
754
similar,
have,
Keene,
past, adopted
a
New We
City
Inc. v.
ings Syndicate,
(1st
Little v. MGIC
approach. See
practical
272-73
Cir.
F.2d
Hampshire,
(3rd
that,
Cir.
1990).
Corp.,
“Town
noted
Indem.
1987) (“[Tjhat
have ar
allegation
an
different courts
require
Goshen does
a claim comes
interpretations of the
conflicting
before
at
physical invasion
rived
liability arising
policy’s
coverage
strongly indicative of the
within
private occu
right of
‘other invasion
ambiguity.”).
essential
”
at 273.
pancy.’
Id.
relevant,
sum,
non-Dela
a
In
review
have criti-
number of states
Although a
law,
there is a
suggests
ware case
Goshen,
follow Town
cized or refused
favoring
of cases
National
number
greater
Builders,
Cal.App.4th
Sterling
see
However,
job
“our
is not
position.
Union’s
110-11,
others have
Cal.Rptr.2d
of cases on
to count the number
simply
conclusion. The Su-
same
reached the
sides,”
County, 174 F.3d
New
Castle
has held that
Washington
preme Court
We must
instead evaluate
at 347.
qualify
trespass claims
and
both nuisance
Reducing counsels’
underlying reasoning.
invasion[s]
“other
as
persuasive
many arguments to their most
Kitsap County v. Allstate
occupancy.” See
essence,
existing non-
we believe that the
964 P.2d
Ins.
136 Wash.2d
can be characterized as
Delaware caselaw
(1998). Kitsap,
In
the court noted
1185-86
hand,
fairly large
a
num
on one
follows:
popular
ordinary, and
“plain,
apply
doc
court decisions
ber of state
of in-
average purchaser
meaning
ambi
ejusdem generis and find no
trine of
‘other
ascribe
surance would
other,
number of
on the
a smaller
guity;
private occupancy’
right of
invasion of the
broad,
upon either
eoncluso-
rely
decisions
a
trespass
against
on or
would include
narrow, fact-specific analy
ry language or
premises or land.”
to use
person’s right
opposite
find
sis to reach the
result. We
added). The court
(emphasis
Id. at 1185
result,
approach convincing. As a
neither
applica-
rejected the
also considered
public policy
turn to
concerns and com
we
generis.
ejusdem
tion of
monsense.
California,
uni-
which has almost
Even
ap-
Hampshire’s
formly rejected
Policy
Public
and Commonsense
C.
occasionally softened its inter-
proach, has
the three briefs submitted
Of
disputed
In
language.
pretation of
case, only
attempts
pub
the amicus
this
Corp.
Insurance Co.
Martin Marietta
policy argument:
lic
America,
1113, 1134,
Cal.App.4th
North
uncertainty when
great
create
[C]ourts
(1996), a state court of
Cal.Rptr.2d
“
unambiguous
they disregard express,
‘other invasion of the
appeal held that
circumscribing
provisions defining
susceptible to
private occupancy’
agrees
risks that the insurer
to cov-
interpretations, and under Cali-
numerous
the insurance
er. Failure to enforce
interpretation,
of contract
fornia’s rules
price
written can affect the
contract as
in favor of the insured.”
must be construed
availability
coverage
for those
claims
environmental
The ease involved
who lack the resources to self-insure—
Martin
entities
federal and state
notably,
most
individuals and small busi-
Marietta.
nesses.
courts have held the lan-
Finally, some
(citations omitted) (em-
Amicus brief at 25
ambiguous simply be-
guage at issue is
added).
completely agree with
phasis
We
among judicial
the wide variance
cause of
fact,
one would be
this statement.
Travelers Indem. Co. v.
decisions. See
disagree.
hard-pressed
anyone
find
America, 715 N.E.2d
Corp.
Summit
as-
(“This
problem
is that
this statement
(Ind.1999)
disagreement
937-38
central
issue
away
sumes
further indicates the am-
among the courts
lan-
disputed policy
case—whether
biguity
personal injury provisions.”).
*11
755
ambiguous.
beyond perad-
is
It is
answer. The
guage
District Court concluded
venture,
contends,
companies
that
that
insurance
as the amicus
intend
“[i]n-
the dis-
puted
context,
important
language
an
economic and
to be read in
surance serves
function,”
meaning
take
specific
social
and courts must enforce
it
terms
(almost always
in
follows
unambiguous policy language
“wrongful
order to
eviction”
“wrongful entry”).
viability.
question
Perhaps
maintain its
re-
this is
is,
however,
true. But
if
mains,
even
their
policy
whether the
is
intent has
CGL
been,
be,
and continues to
unclear.
unambiguous,
parties pro-
and none of the
any policy arguments
addressing
vides
A
pres-
Westlaw search from 1973 to the
particular question.
that
ent reveals 249 cases that
include the
phrase
right
private
of
opinion,
important
In our
the most
occupancy.” Approximately half of those
relevant
in
observation
this case was
required
decisions
interpretation
direct
casually
by
referenced
the District Court.
disputed
fact,
of the
language.
Nation-
The court noted:
al Union itself has been forced to litigate
companies
Insurance
have included the
the meaning
phrase
on numerous
from,
‘wrongful
clause
eviction
wrongful
occasions, and has lost at
least
four
into,
entry
of
right
invasion
of
Yet,
times.11
spite
in
of this extensive
in
private occupancy1
policies
their
for at
history of litigation, and obvious disagree-
twenty years,
litigants
least
have
amongst
parties alike,
ment
courts and
repeatedly disputed the meaning of the
companies,
and National Union
term ‘invasion of the
particular,
continue to use the
...
occupancy.’
any
without
language defining
scope.
its
litigation
After at least two decades of
ask,
again,
“why?”
Once
we must
over the
meaning
the term ‘invasion
private occupancy,’
courts
It is well settled under Dela
at a
have
arrived
uniform definition
policies
ware law that insurance
are con
attempt
of the term. Rather than
to tracts of adhesion. Therefore it is the
construe the term ‘invasion of the
responsibility of the insurer to write clear
private occupancy’
solely based on its
policies with adequately defined terms:
plain meaning, courts have concluded
interpret
[Insurance contracts] must be
ambiguous,
the term is
and have
manner,
ed in a common
giving
sense
techniques
resorted to other
of contract
provisions
effect to all
so that a reason
court,
interpretation.
similarly
will
policyholder
able
can understand the
examine the
term in
meaning
scope and
coverage.
limitation of
It is
policy.
broader context of the CGL
obligation
insurer
state
companies
Insurance
employ
continue to
clearly
policy....
the terms of the
the term ‘invasion of the
principle
behind this
is that
occupancy’
policies, despite
in their
issuer,
the insurer or the
as the case
twenty years
legal
decisions finding
be,
may
entity
control of the
ambiguous.
this term is
It
in-
process
articulating
the terms. The
structive to
why.
ask
party,
ordinary
other
whether it be the
investor,
We also find it
instructive
usually
very
ask
insured or the
has
“why?”
we cannot
say
except
conceive of
little
about those terms
—because
1184-86;
(9th
1995)
Kitsap County,
(unpublished opinion);
11. See
liabilities. Castle, at 556. F.Supp.2d the reasons set forth
Substantially for Court, I affirm its would
by the District
judgment. America, STATES
UNITED NAPPI, Quan Tequan
Robert a/k/a Wade,
Nappi, Keith a/k/a Appellant. Tequan Nappi,
Robert
No. 99-6126. Appeals, States Court of
United
Third Circuit.
Argued Nov. 2000. March
Filed