November 2017 LACBA MCLE Test and Answer Sheet

Test No. 272: The Language of Loss

To access the article related to this test, please click here. The article will open in a separate window.
Instructions for Obtaining MCLE Credit

The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions.

1. Study the CLE article.

2. Answer the test questions by marking the appropriate boxes. Each question has only one answer.

3. Photocopies of this answer sheet may be submitted; however, this form should not be enlarged or reduced. Mail the answer sheet and the $20 testing fee ($25 for non-LACBA members) to:

Los Angeles Lawyer
P.O. Box 55020
Los Angeles, CA 90055

Make checks payable to Los Angeles Lawyer.

4. You can also fill in the test form and submit it directly to LACBA by clicking "Submit." To submit your test answers online you will need to pay by credit card. After submitting your answers you will be presented with a screen requesting payment information. This information will be submitted in a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet. If you prefer not to pay by credit card, please print this answer sheet and submit your responses by regular mail.

5. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will return your test with the correct answers, a rationale for the correct answers, and a certificate verifying the CLE credit you earned through this self-study activity.

6. For future reference, please retain the CLE test materials returned to you.


Test Sheet

Mark your answers to the test by clicking next to your choice.  All questions must be answered.  Each question has only one answer. This test is worth 1 hour of credit.*

1. “Anti-Montrose” language is usually found in the “Conditions” section of an insurance policy.

2. Anti-Montrose provisions have been included in commercial general liability insurance policies since the 2001 revision of the Insurance Services Office standard policy (form CG 00 01).

3. Anti-Montrose language was drafted in response to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Montrose Manufacturing Corporation v. Liberty Insurance Co.

4. In Montrose, the court ruled that with respect to successive third-party liability policies, bodily injury and property damage that is continuous or progressively deteriorating throughout several policy periods is potentially covered by all policies in effect during those periods.

5. In St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, et al., the court found a triable issue of material fact as to whether the insured was “aware by any other means” of the exterior property damage prior to the 2012-2013 Zurich policy.

6. In Ameron International Corporation, et al. v. American Home Assurance Co., the Ninth Circuit concluded the anti-Montrose provision precluded a defense.

7. In State v. Continental Insurance Co., et al., the court determined the insured could “stack” its policies.

8. In St. Paul Fire, the court ruled an anti-stacking provision did not preclude the insured from stacking successive commercial general liability policies to cover continuing/progressive property damage.

9. In Atain Specialty Insurance Co. v. Sierra Pacific Management Co., et al., the court determined the commercial general liability policies’ plain language prohibited stacking.

10. Continuous or progressive injury and damage exclusions preclude coverage for all previously occurring bodily injury/property damage known to the insured.

11. In Saarman Construction, Ltd. v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co., the court granted the carrier’s motion for summary judgment, ruling paragraph 1 of the continuous or progressive injury and damage exclusion precluded potential coverage and, in turn, the carrier’s defense obligation.

12. American Zurich Insurance Co., et al. v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. involved an action in which defending carriers alleged a nondefending commercial general liability carrier wrongly refused to defend their mutual insureds against construction defect lawsuits based on a continuous or progressive injury and damage exclusion.

13. When interpreting an insurance policy in California, the ordinary rules of contractual interpretation apply.

14. In California, a policy provision will be considered ambiguous when it is capable of two or more constructions, both of which are reasonable.

15. California law dictates that coverage provisions are interpreted narrowly so as to afford the greatest possible protection to the insurer.

16. In California, the duty to defend is excused only when the third-party complaint cannot by any conceivable theory raise a single issue that could bring it within the policy coverage.

17. Under California law, insurers are not obligated to defend the entire action if the action includes uncovered and potentially covered claims.

18. To determine whether an insurer owes a duty to defend, California courts will compare the allegations of the complaint with the terms of the policy.

19. California law dictates that allegations in the complaint are liberally construed toward potential coverage.

20. Any doubt as to whether the facts establish the existence of the defense duty must be resolved in the insurance company’s favor.


Before clicking the Submit button, please verify that all questions have been answered. An error message will appear if not all questions are answered.

* The Los Angeles County Bar Association has been approved as a continuing legal education provider of Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California. This self-assessment activity will qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one hour.