Opinion ID: 466346
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Date of Occurrence

Text: 29 The district court concluded that the occurrence that caused the loss of use fell within the time frame of the American Home policy. The policy defines an occurrence as 30 (a) an accident or (b) an event, or continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results during the policy period, in ... property damage ... neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. 31 The court noted that the occurrence--the failure of the windows--extended over a period of time, including a period after the expiration of the American Home policy in April 1973. For purposes of policy coverage, however, the court held that the date of occurrence is the date that Hancock knew or should have known that the building was fundamentally flawed and incapable of fulfilling its intended purpose. The court noted that it was adopting the test articulated in Bartholomew v. Insurance Co. of North America, 502 F.Supp. 246, 254 (D.R.I.), aff'd, 655 F.2d 27 (1st Cir.1981) (date of occurrence is the date the plaintiffs knew, or reasonably should have known, that the machine bought was fundamentally flawed such that it is incapable of fulfilling its intended purpose) and in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. American Insurance Co., 169 Ind.App. 1, 345 N.E.2d 267, 271-72 (1976) (damage occurs when the harm puts a reasonable person on notice of a possibly defective structure.) 32 We agree that the test for determining the date of the occurrence should be the time at which a reasonable person would be aware that a defect exists that may give rise to a cause of action. In this case, Hancock became aware of the windows' defects in January 1973, when Pei informed Hancock that the windows presented a clear and present danger to the public. Thus, the occurrence took place within the time period covered by the American Home policy, that of June 1972 to April 1973.