The insurer defended the underlying construction defect case under a reservation of rights, but moved for summary judgment in the coverage action on its duty to indemnify.  Mid-Continent Caus. Co. v. Frank Casserino Constr., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59363 (M.D. Fla. June 16, 2010). 

   The general contractor subcontracted with the insured to perform building wrap, vinyl siding, and roofing for two apartment building projects.  The buildings were completed in 1998.  In 2004, water damage was discovered.  The subcontractor's expert opined there were latent defects in the buildings that would have been discernible when the first measurable rains after construction was completed in 1998. 

   The subcontractor was insured under consecutive CGL policies from August 30, 1998 through August 30, 2002.  On the insurer's motion for summary judgment, the Court first noted that the "property damage" at issue concerned the physical damage to the buildings caused by water intrusion.  To determine whether the damage occurred during a policy period, coverage under Florida law was triggered when property damage manifested itself. 

   Here, the insured subcontractor had the burden of proving that "property damage" manifested prior to August 30, 2002, the last day on which the policies were in effect.  The insurer argued that the subcontractor's expert had no personal knowledge as to whether any damage from water intrusion was manifested during the policy period.  The court determined, however, that actually seeing the damage during the policy period was not required.  The only relevant question was whether physical injury to the buildings manifested itself during the period of coverage.  The insured's expert opined that it did.  There was sufficient, albeit perhaps disputable, evidence to support this opinion.  Accordingly, disputed issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the insurer's motion.