longer had to indemnify under Coverage A. Second, WQIS’s interpretation of the Policy is supported by the overall structure and purpose of the Policy. WQIS argues that the parties could not have intended its obligation to indemnify defense costs under Coverage C to continue after the Coverage A limit was exhausted. Such an interpretation of the parties’ intent could result in WQIS’s paying for defense costs far in excess of the $5 million limit on liability, and it would require WQIS to have responsibility for reimbursing defense costs even when it no longer had an interest in defending or minimizing liability for the incident. A reasonable person could conclude that this could not have been what the parties intended. Mastrovincenzo v. City of New York, 435 F.3d 78, 104 (2d Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). Third, to the extent extrinsic evidence is
holding that courts should avoid interpretations of statutes which would produce absurd results holding that contracts should be interpreted to avoid absurd results recognizing that courts should not construe statutes in a way that leads to absurd results holding that virginia courts must avoid absurd results holding that contracts should be interpreted to give effect to all provisions