United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy."