Relying upon the same case cited by the Hawaii Supreme Court in its seminal decision on duty to defend, the federal district court determined the allegations sufficiently established a duty to defend construction defect claims. Voeller Constr. v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61862 (M. D. Fla. May 5, 2014).
The Bay Harbor Clearwater Condominium Association, Inc. sued Voeller Construction for statutory breach of warranty and building code violations which allegedly caused damage to the condominium structure. The complaint alleged that the damage was unknown to the unit owners at the time they purchased their units. The project was completed in 2007. Expert reports attached to the complaint listed July 7, 2010, as the earliest date of discovery of the damage to the property. The CGL policies were effective from January 24, 2007 to May 9, 2009. Therefore, the insurer argued there was no coverage because the alleged "property damage" was discovered for more than one year after the policies expired.
The court determined there was a duty to defend. Citing Trizec Props., Inc. v. Biltmore Constr. Co., 767 F.2d 810 (11th Cir. 1985), the court noted that if the complaint alleged facts which created potential coverage under the policy, the duty to defend was triggered. The Hawaii Supreme Court relied on Trizec and made the same ruling in Dairy Road Partners v. Island Ins Co., Ltd., 92 Haw. 398, 412, 992 P.2d 93, 107 (2000).
The Florida Supreme Court had never decided whether the manifestation or injury-in-fact trigger applied when the date on which property damage commenced was unknown. The federal court decided injury-in-fact trigger was the appropriate theory for the occurrence based policy here because the policy was essentially the same as the policy considered under Trizec.
Because the allegations in the underlying complaint suggested that physical damage occurred at some point after the buildings were completed in 2007 and before the expert's inspection in 2010, and the insurer's policies were in effect during this time frame, the insurer had a duty to defend.
