This article explores the California Supreme Court's landmark decision inMontrose Chemical Corporation of California v. Admiral Insurance Companyfrom the perspective of Montrose. The article discusses events leading to the decision, with emphasis given to the formulation of Montrose's successful appellate strategy and elaborates on several significant aspects of the California Supreme Court's adoption of a “continuous trigger”; and rejection of a third‐party “known loss”; defense. The article concludes that the California Supreme Court's holding, especially when considered with other recent appellate victories for Montrose, has given rise to a principled approach that exalts the language itself of third‐party comprehensive general liability contracts above all other considerations. The end result is an insurance litigation landscape that is vastly more simplified and less costly to policyholders and carriers alike.