JW Aluminum asserted that the lower court’s reading of the policy renders other sections superfluous. The company pointed out that other sublimits and endorsements within the policy apply more broadly to limit coverage for other losses, and applying the narrow molten material endorsement to all the incurred losses would negate the other endorsements.
The company argued that accepting the insurers’ and lower court’s stance that the endorsement applies to all damage connected in any way to heat from molten material would cause the policy to violate minimum coverage laws and lead to an illogical result inconsistent with the parties’ explicitly expressed intent.
JW Aluminum also maintained that even if the policy is not technically ambiguous, it never expected the endorsement to apply to ensuing fire or other damages, necessitating reversal.
Representatives of the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.
JW Aluminum is represented by Craig A. Boneau, Scott D. Saldaña, Dylan E. Jones, Morgan M. Menchaca, and Julia L. DiFiore of Reid Collins & Tsai LLP and Beattie B. Ashmore.
