which this insurance may apply.” (Def. Mot. Summ. J. App. 70). Plaintiff acknowledges this in its Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum, page 1. 3 . The parties do not dispute that the incident in question occurred within the policy period, within the policy's coverage territory, and without any prior knowledge by any employee of the insured before the policy period. The main argument centers around whether the action was an "occurrence” under the policy. 4 . The Intervenors' Amended Petition incorporates the facts as alleged in the underlying plaintiffs petition; therefore, the Court examines only the Plaintiff’s (D-S-B’s) Original Petition. 5 . But see Southwest Tank and Treater Manufacturing Company v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, 243 F.Supp.2d 597, 603 (E.D.Tex.2003) (<HOLDING>). The district court held that using the word
holding in favor of insurer that a steel storage tank on which the insured was working was a selfcontained collective unit which constituted a single item of property when the insured was hired to install heating tubes to be used in the whole tank holding that the use of the phrase any insured rather than the insured the same language used in the employers liability exclusion here meant that the exclusion was not limited to injuries sustained by the employees or contractors of one insured party holding that if the insured is only partially compensated by the insurer both the insurer and the insured are real partiesininterest holding despite a reservation of rights that when the insurer provides a defense to its insured the insured has no right to interfere with the insurers control of the defense and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant without the consent of the insurer is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled