Some courts would have us believe that the only source of answer to this question lies in the broad notion of a “car” insurance agreement, just as some courts would have us believe that coverage for defective treatment depends entirely on the term “presence” of the insurance agreement. What constitutes a `car` is largely determined in the context of the exclusions of the directive, in which we learn that a `car` does not include, for example, a vehicle with less than four wheels, nor a vehicle designed for use off public roads. Similarly, we learn that defective processing is covered or not to the extent that such coverage is marked by the exclusions of the directive. Nothing in the language since 1966 indicates that the CGL insurance agreement does not contain any legal liability that is not otherwise excluded or limited by the policy. Indeed, the 1966 and 1973 CGL policies made an explicit and notable exception to the contractual exclusion of liability: if an insurance body wishes or must restrict the meaning of a term, the word or expression is specifically defined in the policy. If a word or phrase is not defined, it takes on its “everyday” meaning. ISO specifically defines and monitors the application of six terms in the coverage A insurance agreement: “exposure theory” and “continuous trigger theory”. When the insurance agreement was introduced, many believed that the purpose of the known formulation of the injury limitation in paragraphs “b”, “c.” and “d.” of the insurance agreement was to limit coverage to a single period of insurance. However, this objective has not been achieved if “exposure theory” or “continuous trigger theory” is applied to a given claim. In fact, this never seems to have been ISO`s intention. The same is true in Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999), the California Supreme Court rejected numerous decisions of the Court of Appeals that the notion of an insurance agreement “legally undertakes to pay damages” relates only to liability for an unlawful act and stated that nothing in the language.” suggests to the sentence a particular or legalistic meaning.
A reasonable layman would certainly understand the “legal obligation to pay” to refer to any obligation that, by law, is mandatory and enforceable, whether due to contractual liability or casual liability. “Under Coverage A`s insurance agreement, there are ten conditions that must be met before there is coverage. Once all these conditions are met, the cover researcher can turn their attention to exclusions, exceptions and conditions. The 10 restrictions and requirements of the insurance agreement are as follows: it is short-term to limit the consideration of defective conversion rights to the CGL insurance contract alone. The whole policy must be seen in context. It is possible and even likely that an insured will accidentally damage his or her own work, and from his or her point of view, such an accidental loss may result from the negligence of a subcontractor. . . .