An employee of the appellant's subsidiary was injured at work and settled a claim for $1,350,000.
The appellant sued its excess insurer for the $350,000 amount above its primary coverage.
The appellant argued the umbrella policy provided 'claims made' coverage, while the insurer argued an endorsement limited it to an 'occurrence' basis.
The trial judge found the endorsement superseded the general policy provisions and required an occurrence during the policy period.
The Court of Appeal upheld this interpretation, finding the endorsement operated as a coverage trigger rather than an exclusion, and dismissed the appeal.