that the “accident” occurred before the damage to the groundwater and soil took place would require us to adopt an “exposure” rule, rather than the “actual injury” rule approved by our supreme court. b. “Appreciable” property damage. Where damages have occurred over multiple policy periods, a court should presume that the damages were continuous, and a party who contends that no “appreciable damage” occurred during a certain period of coverage has the burden of proving that fact. NSP, 523 N.W.2d at 664. Lloyd’s argues that no appreciable property damage occurred during its policy periods. In the context of time periods, that which is appreciable has been contrasted with that which is merely temporary or momentary. See Ford v. Stevens, 280 Minn. 16, 19, 157 N.W.2d 510, 513 (1968) (<HOLDING>). But the term “appreciable” more generally
holding that although petitioner suffered employment discrimination lost his job as a taxi driver and was forced to take menial work he was not persecuted holding that 24 foreclosure for an unreasonable length of time is substantial holding that out of pocket expenses reimbursable to creditors committee counsel include photocopy charges but not costs of meals secretarial overtime and cab fare where the necessity for them was not established holding that taxi cab did not park for an appreciable length of time when it merely stopped to let out passengers holding that an applicant who suffered employment discrimination lost his job as a taxi driver and was forced to take menial work failed to show persecution