A commentary on insurance coverage issues in Hawaii and beyond
The U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida was confronted with determining whether Florida would follow the manifestation or injury in fact trigger in Axis Surplus Ins. Co. v. Contravest Constr. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104502 (D. Fla. June 5, 2012).
The homeowner's association sued the insureds for…
The Seventh Circuit predicted that the Wisconsin Supreme Court would adopt the continuous injury trigger for first party property loss that extends over several policy periods. Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12940 (7th Cir. June 25, 2012).
A home inspection report performed before the Millers purchased…
The Texas Court of Appeals held that the insured need not prove the exact dates physical damage occurred in order to trigger defense and indemnity coverage. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes, LLC v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 10027 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2011).
In 1999, the insured built a home.
Although the excess carrier was given inadequate notice of the underlying arbitration, the trial court determined it shared responsibility with the primary carrier for the arbitration award. Finding disputed issues of fact, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed in Am. States Ins. Co. v. Century Surety Co., 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 2488 (Wash.
The insured was a developer of a residential project. Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Siena Home Corp., 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 79132 (M.D. Fla. July 8, 2011). The homeowners filed suit, alleging their homes had defectively constructed exterior wall assemblies which allowed moisture and water to penetrate.
Mid-Continent filed suit for a declaratory judgment…
Addressing which of the two insurers' policies were responsible for the loss, the Indiana Court of Appeals found both policies were triggered because property damage occurred within each insurer's policy period. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 442 (Ind. Ct. App. March 15, 2011).
Cincinnati…
When property damage manifests before the policy period, but continues over time and overlaps the CGL's policy period, does the policy provide coverage? Applying Florida law, the U.S. District Court determined that under the manifestation trigger, there was no coverage. See Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Albanese Popkin The Oaks Development Group, L.P., 2010 U.S. Dist.
The ABA’s Section of Litigation, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee’s annual conference was held in Tucson last week. Rina Carmel and I led a lively discussion on applicable triggers for property policies. Although the manifestation of an injury has been used by some courts to trigger a property policy, the injury-in-fact trigger has more recently been adopted by other courts. The outline for our presentation is here.
In Emhart Indus., Inc. v. Century Indemn. Co., No. 07-2806 (1st Cir. March 13, 2009)[here], the First Circuit found a duty to defend a CERCLA case until the point at which it was determined there was no duty to indemnify.
From 1944 to 1968, Metro-Atlantic operated a chemical plant at the …
Our last post summarized a Texas case (Byrne, Ltd. v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 9041 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2008)), which held the insurer must defend where the underlying complaint is silent as to when the injury occurred. Today we shift gears and review a case favorable to insurers…
