Bechtel Petroleum Operations v.The Continental Ins. Co
Filed 3/6/06 Bechtel Petroleum Operations v.The Continental Ins. Co. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| BECHTEL PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants and Respondents. CHEVRON, U.S.A., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO, et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B176561 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC050672) B179969 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC054504) |
Continued……
Bechtel and Chevron make no argument the allegations of the complaints do not assert claims for traditional environmental pollution. Instead, they claim facts extrinsic to the complaints show the plaintiffs claimed bodily injury from acts or omissions which were not limited to their exposure to the toxic substances at the reserve, and these additional facts were sufficient to trigger a potential for coverage under the insurers' policies. Chevron and Bechtel rely on the following evidence extrinsic to the complaint in support of their argument the underlying bodily injuries were also caused by non-toxic causes as well:
(1) Bechtel and Chevron provided the insurers with a declaration from Joseph J. Iacopino, the plaintiffs' lead counsel in the underlying actions. Counsel stated â€
