cause of each of their injuries and therefore comprised two occurrences. Cf. Koikos, 849 So.2d at 272 (concluding that “using the number of shots fired as the basis for the number of occurrences is appropriate because each individual shooting is distinguishable in time and space”). Or even to the conclusion that each act of abuse or molestation was a separate occurrence. See Society of Roman Catholic Church v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 26 F.3d 1359, 1364 (5th Cir.1994) (applying Louisiana law, the court found that when thirty-one children were molested by two priests, the cumulative injury to each child constituted a separate occurrence with respect to claims against the church); See also Worcester Ins. v. Fells Acres Day Sch., Inc., 408 Mass. 393, 558 N.E.2d 958, 973-74 (1990) (<HOLDING>). However, the inquiry is irrelevant in this
holding that numerous discrete acts of abuse by several different defendants at different locations comprised more than one occurrence holding that the legislature intends different meanings when it uses different terms in a statute holding that an arbitrator was not bound by an earlier award involving a different contract and different union holding a defendant may not be convicted of more than one count of dissemination of matter harmful to minors based on one occurrence even if there was more than one victim holding that the plaintiffs had relied on illinois law because they could have filed in a different forum having a different statute of limitations