Then, with respect to the timing of the contamination, in June 2009 a jury found that U.S. Fire had not proven that the pollution first began after the policy period. This finding triggered indemnity. The jury also found that U.S. Fire farther failed to prove any date on which the pollution had first begun. , Third, the Boston Gas decision. As noted earlier, the SJC issued its decision in Boston Gas about one month after the 2009 indemnity trial in this case but before the district court had resolved allocation questions. Boston Gas rejected the joint and several liability approach for indemnity in progressive pollution cases, instead adopting a pro rata allocation rule that applies even for pollution years in which the property owner is self-insured. 910 N.E.2d at 299-311, 315-16 (<HOLDING>). The SJC further held that, while a fact-based
holding depends on the policy language at hand holding that absent follow form language provision that excess policy would continue as underlying policy did not impose coverage as provided in underlying policy holding that express language in the policy permitted the insurer to avoid paying costs on appeal holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy holding that language almost identical to the language in the policy at issue in this case ie due proof conveys discretionary authority