In Stonewall Ins. Co. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1810, the insured settled an action alleging continuous property damage from 1971 through 1981. (Id. at pp. 1822-1823.) One insurer (Jefferson) had issued one primary liability policy, covering a period from 1975 through 1978, with three annual endorsements; each endorsement provided for a policy limit of $ 300,000 per occurrence. (Id. at pp. 1833, 1849.) In Stonewall, Jefferson had issued one policy covering a three-year period. However, it had also issued three annual endorsements, each with its own "Declarations" and each specifying a policy limit of $300,000 per occurrence. The trial court ruled that the policy covered three separate periods with a limit of $300,000 for each period, or a total of $900,000. (Id. at p. 1849.) The appellate court held: "The trial court's determination was correct. At the least, the policy is ambiguous and the ambiguity must be construed against Jefferson. Moreover, the ambiguity is resolved against Jefferson in a stipulation between it and Maine Bonding providing: 'The subject policies of insurance issued by ... Jefferson ... provided coverage of $300,000 per occurrence per year as respects property damage. ...'Jefferson makes no claim that it sought in the trial court to be relieved of the stipulation." (Ibid.) The appellate court held that "the Jefferson policy covered three separate periods with a limit of $ 300,000 for each period, an aggregate of $ 900,000 in coverage." (Stonewall, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1849.) It explained: Jefferson claims ... that its policy language defining occurrence limits its exposure to $ 300,000. This language ... states that all damage arising from continuous and repeated exposure is deemed a ***43 single occurrence. This argument ignores two points: (1) the policy covers liability for occurrences within a policy period; (2) the Jefferson policy covers three separate periods. Reading (as we must) the Jefferson policy in a fashion resolving ambiguities against it, the language on which Jefferson relies must be construed as referring to a single occurrence in a policy period. The Jefferson policy covering three policy periods, the policy language amounts to a $ 300,000 per period limitation--or, in the context of this case (involving a continuous trigger), a $ 900,000 limitation." (Ibid.) In addition to reasoning that any ambiguity had to be resolved against Jefferson, the court also noted that Jefferson had, in effect, resolved the ambiguity against itself. Jefferson had entered into a stipulation (albeit with an excess insurer, see Stonewall, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1833, not with the insured) providing that "'the subject policies of insurance issued by ... Jefferson ... provided coverage of $ 300,000 per occurrence per year as respects property damage ... .'" (Id. at p. 1849.)