at Lloyd's, 156 N.H. 333, 934 A.2d 517, 522 (2007); cf. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 288 Ill.App.3d 69, 223 Ill.Dec. 350, 679 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1997) (employing the “continuous occurrence” rubric where workers suffered hearing loss attributable to many years of exposure to high noise levels). Justice SAYLOR, dissenting. I would dismiss this appeal as having been improvidently granted. My reasoning follows. In some lines of insurance law decisions, it is difficult to discern the degree to which the courts are applying conventional principles of contract construction or layering doctrinal innovations over salient policy terms based upon practical or equitable considerations. See, e.g., J.H. France Refractories Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 534 Pa. 29, 38, 626 A.2d 502, 507 (1993) (<HOLDING>). From my own point of view, I believe that it
holding that plaintiff bears burden of production as well as persuasion holding that medical evidence as to nexus to service expressed as very well might have been although not conclusive suffices to well ground claim holding that it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy spacious as well as clean wellbalanced as well as carefully patrolled holding that exposure to asbestos as well as all phases of an ensuing disease independently trigger coverage holding that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy