State: 
Oregon
Year: 
2016
Case Number: 
A159858
Court: 
Oregon Supreme Court
Issue: 
Contract Interpretation
Ambiguous terms

In an insurer v. insurer coverage battle, UP and co-amici urged an interpretation favorable to the policyholder of a coverage provision which does not require "seepage, pollution or contamination” resulting from a “sudden, unintended and unexpected happening” during the policy period to be “abrupt” or “instantaneous” for coverage to exist. 

Related Docs: 
Author: 
UP is represented by Seth H. Row of Miller Nash Graham and Dunn