law as an alternate route to reach this same conclusion. Id. Courts in other jurisdictions have agreed with the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of “handled.” See, e.g., American Home Assurance Co. v. ACM Marine Contractors, Inc., 467 F.3d 810, 814 & n. 3 (1st Cir.2006) (citing and distinguishing Gulf Mississippi Marine because the insured “was responsible for procuring the docks and providing them in their final form”); National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Structural Sys. Tech., Inc., 756 F.Supp. 1232, 1239 (E.D.Mo. 1991), amended on other grounds by 764 F.Supp. 145 (E.D.Mo.1991), aff'd, 964 F.2d 759 (8th Cir.1992) (defining handled as “to deal or trade in” rather than “to touch”); see also Hydro Systems, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 929 F.2d 472, 475 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the Fifth Circuit definition
holding that a broad statutory definition of a term that was inconsistent with the terms plain meaning did not affect the terms definition in other contexts holding that gas liberated by the insureds manufacturing process was not the insureds product because it did not fit the common sense definition of products as goods or services which the insured deals in as his stock or trade stating that the term disposed of in the policys definition of your product did not detract from the generally understood meaning of the term product  holding that the hospital was fraudulently joined because it did not meet the definition of seller as defined by mississippis product liability statute or under the uniform commercial code holding that an action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the uniform commercial code is a product liability action within the meaning of the products liability act if as here the action is for injury to person or property resulting from a sale of a product holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury