the language of the policy is susceptible of two constructions, as manifested in argument, it is to be construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured.”) Thus, the definition of "manifest” that should be adopted — even if discovery is a possible interpretation of the term — favors coverage in this case. 23 . Interpreting "manifest” to mean discoverable, moreover, is consistent with nature of an occurrence-based policy and with the expectations of the insured, as an occurrence of bodily injury or property damage — here, when the property became polluted, with each discharge of PCE, to a legally significant level — has nothing to do with when that injury or damage is discovered. Cf. Maryland Cos. Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 23 F.3d 617, 627 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). As the Sixth Circuit has observed, "[I]t is
holding that notice occurs when party charged with having notice has actual knowledge or when from all the facts and circumstances known to him at the time in question he has reason to know that it exists holding that the installation of asbestoscontaining materials caused immediate physical injury to the building because asbestos is ultrahazardous holding that actual injury to property  the presence of the asbestos hazard  occurs upon installation and exists regardless of whether it yet has been discovered by the building owners holding that injury does not occur upon exposure to asbestos but rather upon development of disease holding that subsequent property owners were bound by prior owners agreement to restrict building density and preserve certain portions of land as a condition of the original zoning approval