and will imminently affect the groundwater, the insured need not wait for the ground water to show contamination in order to obtain insurance coverage for remediation. The requirement of imminent damage prevents insureds from passing off the cost of the property improvements to their insurers where third-party damage is purely speculative----While the owned property provision .does not bar coverage for remediation of third-party property, it also does not bar coverage where remediation was undertaken pursuant to a government mandate. [/A at 455.] Other jurisdictions also have held that insurers are required to indemnify remediation costs even when contamination has not spread beyond the insured’s own property. See Patz v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 699, 705 (7th Cir.1994)(<HOLDING>); Bankers Trust Co. v. Hartford Accident &
recognizing that coverage could be triggered by need to prevent imminent contamination of groundwater holding groundwater contamination is continuous process in which the property damage is evenly distributed over the period of time from the first contamination to the end of the last triggered policy holding location of named driver exclusion in endorsement did not make it ambiguous exclusion applied to all coverage afforded by the policy including the um coverage holding that pollution exclusion did not apply to claim arising from ingestion of lead paint because exclusion reasonably may be limited to environmental claims holding that coverage was triggered despite applicability of owned property exclusion because government had mandated remediation of the environmental contamination