exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. E.g., Plaintiffs Exh. 5. In analyzing an identical definition of “occurrence”, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) has held: “In deciding whether there was an occurrence ... the focus of the inquiry is on the property damage, asking whether it was expected or intended from the insured’s point of view.” Lumbermens Mut. Cas. v. Belleville Inds., 407 Mass. 675, 679, 555 N.E.2d 568, 571 (1990). The inquiry focuses on the foreseeability of the damage caused by the discharge, not on the foreseeability of the discharge itself. See A. Johnson & Co., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 933 F.2d 66, 72 n. 9 (1st Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The court must evaluate Lumber-mens’ duty to
holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations holding that under maine law the occurrence provision focuses on the property damage after the initial discharge and whether it was expected or intended from the insureds point of view holding that insurer who after being told of occurrence contacted insureds attorney for information should have issued reservation of rights letter within a reasonable time after  it was informed of the occurrence holding that intentional acts do not exclude coverage under the occurrence language unless the injury was expected or intended holding that an objective standard to determine whether the injury was intended or expected would be inconsistent with insurance coverage for damage resulting from ordinary negligence