Court would apply the same analysis to the stipulated facts of this ease. When a priest molested a child during a policy year, there was both bodily injury and an occurrence, triggering policy coverage. All further molestations of that child during the policy period arose out of the same occurrence. When the priest molested the same child during the succeeding policy year, again there was both bodily injury and an occurrence. Thus, each child suffered an “occurrence” in each policy period in which he was molested. See Diocese of Winona v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co., 841 F.Supp. 894, 898-99 (D.Minn.1992) (accepting that the church’s negligent supervision of a priest can constitute an occurrence during each policy period in which a child was molested); Cole, 599 So.2d at 1075-80 (<HOLDING>); Houston, 506 So.2d at 150 (“It is reasonable
holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage holding that policy coverage is triggered in each year that the plaintiff inhaled asbestos holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage holding claims alleging misrepresentation do not fall within the coverage of a comprehensive general liability policy and thus the duty to defend is not triggered recognizing that coverage could be triggered by need to prevent imminent contamination of groundwater