b'

https://zalma.com/blog

Trigger of Coverage

The term \\u201ctrigger of coverage\\u201d means \\u201cwhat event must occur for  potential coverage to commence under the terms of the insurance policy\\u201d  and \\u201cwhat must take place within the policy\\u2019s effective dates for the  potential of coverage to be \\u2018triggered.\'\\u201d [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 \\u201cobviat[ing] the application of the \\u2018progressive  damage-continuous trigger\\u2019 articulated in Montrose.\\u201d As a result, the  defendant\\u2019s policies state that property damage \\u201cwhich 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.\\u201d  [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.