BROADCASTS.com

b'

The Property Damage Trigger of Coverage  

https://zalma.com/blog

The term "trigger of coverage" means "what event must occur for  potential coverage to commence under the terms of the insurance policy"  and "what must take place within the policy\'s effective dates for the  potential of coverage to be \'triggered.\'" [In Re Feature Realty Litig.,  468 F. Supp.2d 1287, 1295, n.2 (E.D. Wash. 2006)]  After the California Supreme Court adopted a continuous trigger in  Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645, 685,  42 Cal.Rptr.2d 324, 913 P.2d 878 (Montrose) in the case of successive  policies, property damage that is continuous or progressively  deteriorating throughout several policy periods is potentially covered  by all policies in effect during those periods, so that the insurer\\u2019s  duty to defend arose under those policies. Insurers, trying to limit  their coverage, revised the policy wording.  Therefore, the precise question is what result follows under the  language of the policies of insurance to which the parties agreed. The  \\u201ccontinuous injury\\u201d trigger has been applied mostly in cases involving  gradual release of pollutants and other environmental harms. After  Montrose, the insurer revised its policies to use the language for the  very purpose of "obviat[ing] the application of the \\u2018progressive  damage-continuous trigger\\u2019 articulated in Montrose." As a result, the  defendant\\u2019s policies state that property damage "which commenced prior  to the effective date of this insurance will be deemed to have happened  in its entirety prior to, and not during, the term of this insurance."  [Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Am. Safety Indem. Co., 32 Cal.App.5th 898, 244  Cal.Rptr.3d 310 (Cal. App., 2019)]  In King Cnty. v. Travelers Indem. Co. (W.D. Wash., 2019) the Louisiana  Court of Appeals ruled that allegations by a property owner that an  environmental consultant failed to detect the presence of pollutants on  its property did not trigger coverage under the consultant\\u2019s liability  policies. The Court found that the \\u201coccurrence\\u201d giving rise to the  claims against the insured took place years prior to the issuance of the  policies in question. [Herzog Contracting Corp. v. Oliver, No. 40, 918  So.2d 516 (La. App. Cir.2 12/16/2005).]  \\xa9 2021 \\u2013 Barry Zalma  Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an  insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance  claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost  equally for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator  or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in  California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims  handling lawyer and more than 52 years in the insurance business. He is  available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com.  Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine/ACE  Legend Award.  

 Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma;  Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library \\u2013 https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-   library/ Read posts from Barry Zalma at https://parler.com/profile/Zalma/posts; and Read last two issues of ZIFL here.