In Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 255 Conn 295, 326, 765 A2d 891, 907 [2001], the policies stated that "[f]or purposes of determining the limit of the company's liability and the retained limit, all bodily injury and property damage arising out of continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence" (255 Conn at 309, 765 A2d at 898). The Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that "the continuous exposure clause in the ... policies serve[d] to combine claims arising from exposure to asbestos at the same place at roughly the same time into one occurrence, not to combine hundreds of thousands of exposures at different times and locations into one occurrence" (255 Conn at 305, 765 A2d at 896). Despite the continuous exposure clause, the Connecticut Supreme Court nevertheless found that there were multiple occurrences (id.). The court in Metropolitan Life reasoned that "the claimants' injuries in this case arose from exposures to asbestos at several locations, at different times, and for varying lengths of time. These circumstances clearly do not constitute `the same general conditions ... .' Thus, as a plain reading of the policies shows, the continuous exposure clause does not combine hundreds of thousands of exposures to asbestos into one occurrence" (255 Conn. at 310, 765 A2d at 899).