Here is an interesting article originally written by Todd A. Picker (Orange County Accident lawyer), Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, Irvine, Sacramento, California
In the Past, disputes involving both first- and third-party insurance claims arising from progressive or continuous damage, that is, damage occurring over an extended period of time, have consistently arisen in the United States in places such as Los Angeles overall. These disputes typically concern damage that is occurring over a long period of time but is not immediately discovered: for example, claims seeking damages for personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, bodily injury and property damage Howing from the creation of environmental hazards through the gradual release of toxic materials, or damages caused by earth movement or subsidence. Determining when the ‘occurrence’ takes place is critical, as the facts may demonstrate that the damage did not occur during a particular carrier’s policy period, because the damage to the claimant was sustained either before coverage incepted or after the policy expired. On the one hand, some courts have looked to a discrete event, such as the manifestation of appreciable damage, that will trigger coverage at a specific point in time. Other courts have looked beyond the manifestation of damage to the point(s) in time when the third-party claimant is first exposed to conditions causing damage or when the claimant is actually damaged. Notwithstanding the fact that United States courts have been interpreting the same contractual language using essentially the same rules of construction, different results have been achieved. This divergence of opinion is clearly related to the complex factual situations out of which these cases arise.
Four theories of allocating insutance coverage, or ‘triggers’ of coverage, for progressive losses have emerged: the ‘manifestation’ theory, the ‘exposure’ theory, the ‘injury in fact’ theory and the ‘continuous injury’ theory. This article will examine the four theories of allocation, predominantly in the context of third-party claims, and the factual situations to which they have typically been applied. Incidentially reside either in orange County or nearby communities such as irvine and require a superb Los Angeles personal Injury Lawyer then certainly look at the Law firm of Robert Mansell as he is also a leading Accident attorney in the southern California and Los Angeles region.The comprehensive general liability policy (“CGI”) is a standard liability policy in use throughout the United States. Under a CGL policy the insurer is obligated to indemnifY the insured for ‘all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages’ because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident or occurrence, whether a lawyer is involved or not. The insurer is also obligated to defend any suit filed against the insured by a third party to recover damages on ‘account of such personal injury … even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent.’ An ‘occurrence’ is an ‘accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.”
While insurance policies have special characteristics, they are still contracts to which the ordinary rules of contractual interpretation apply.2 An obvious, but important, special characteristic of insurance contracts is that only contingent or unknown events will be covered. As one court has observed, ‘[a] insurance contract represents an exchange of an uncertain loss for a certain loss. In a comprehensive general liability insurance policy, the uncertain loss is the possibility of incurring legal liability, and the certain loss is the premium payment. By issuing the policy, the insurer agrees to assume the risk of the insured’s liability for a fixed sum of money.’3 Risks of loss that are known, or are no longer contingent, are generally not insurable.