The definition in an insurance contract of a personal injury as an “invasion of the right of private occupancy” has not p is not ambiguous. We must first determine whether the phrase “other invasion of the right of private occupancy” is ambiguous. See, e.g., Phillips, 859 P.2d at 1104. Based on the plain language of the policy, we conclude, as have other courts, that it is not. See Martin v. Brunzelle, 699 F.Supp. 167, 171 (N.D.Ill.1988) (applying Illinois law); Harbor Ins. Co. v. Anderson Leasing, Inc., No. CIV. A. 87C-DE-18, 1989 WL 112532, at *1 (Del.Super.Ct. Sept. 27, 1989) (applying Delaware law); Larson v. Continental Casualty Co., 377 N.W.2d 148, 150 (S.D.1985) (applying South Dakota law). But see Titan Holdings Syndicate v. City of Keene, 898 F.2d 265, 272 (1st Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). The rule of ejusdem generis, a rule of
holding that to apply the personal injury endorsement montana law requires the complaint to allege facts establishing the elements of one of the enumerated torts listed under the insurance policys definition of personal injury holding that proceeds of a personal injury settlement are not exempt under missouri law holding that under new hampshire law this definition of personal injury is ambiguous holding that age discrimination is not a personal injury tort holding that new york law applies to this matter