In
its recent December 15, 2014 Opinion in the case of Penn Nat'l. Mut. Cas. v. St. John, 86 MAP 2012 (Pa. Dec. 15,
2014)(Op. by Baer, J.)(Dissenting Op. by Saylor, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the
applicability of the multiple trigger theory of liability insurance previously
it adopted in the context of asbestos litigation would apply in this case of an
alleged ongoing and progressive property damage that was manifested in a later
injury.
The
underlying facts involved the insured's expansion of their dairy farm and
faulty work performed by a plumbing company in that expansion that eventually
led to contaminated water being provide to the farm's herd of milking cows.
Here,
there was a dispute between parties over which of several insurance policies
were implicated for coverage under the facts presented. The insured was arguing that coverage should
be considered to be triggered under all policies in existence from the time of
the exposure to the harmful condition until the manifestation of the injury.
After
review, the Supreme Court affirmed all aspects of the lower court’s decision
finding that coverage was triggered under only that policy that was in effect when
property damage became "reasonably apparent." In so ruling, the Court applied its
understanding of the first manifestation rule in terms of the triggering of
liability coverage.
Notably,
the Court declined to apply the multiple trigger theory of liability insurance
coverage to this set of circumstances.
Anyone
wishing to review this Opinion, may click this LINK.
I
send thanks to Attorney Steven DiLiberto of the Wilmington, Delaware office of
ACE North American Claims for bringing this case to my attention.
Source of Image: www.zazzle.com.au
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.