Opinion ID: 2052528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Trigger of Coverage Material Factual Disputes

Text: The question of when injury occurred is an issue of fact. See American Home Products II, 748 F.2d at 763; American Home Products I, 565 F.Supp. at 1509; Abex Corp. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 790 F.2d at 128; Stonewall Insurance Co. v. Asbestos Claims Management Corp., 73 F.3d 1178 (2d Cir.1995). [10] The critical inquiry in making that factual determination is whether the injury or damage occurred during the policy period, even if the injury or damage did not become manifest until after the policy period. [11] Such a factual determination is not an impossible task: The courts are wrong to conclude that ... experts and finders of fact will be unable to determine the time of actual injury ... with sufficient accuracy. In many cases, the onset of injury ... will be possible to pinpoint with great certainty, since the time of such an occurrence will be simultaneous with exposure or manifestation. Even where the injury ... cannot be pinpointed, however, experts will be able to place before the parties for purposes of negotiation, and before the finders of fact at trial, estimates based on a reasonable degree of ... certainty as to when the [injury occurred.] ... Of course experts will be unable in many cases to identify the exact day on which an injury ... occurred. But such precision is not required; all that is necessary is reasonably reliable evidence that the injury ... more likely than not occurred during a period of coverage,.... American Home Products I, 565 F.Supp. at 1509. In order to trigger coverage, an insured must set forth sufficient factual evidence to prove the existence of an injury-in-fact during the policy period. American Home Products II, 748 F.2d at 763. If an insured offers sufficient proof which is capable of establishing that injury or damage more likely than not occurred during a particular policy period, a trial court must permit the presentation of such proof to the trier of fact. It is inappropriate to resolve that factual issue on summary judgment. See Stonewall Insurance Co. v. Asbestos Claims Management Corp., 73 F.3d at 1213-14. The Superior Court acknowledged that the issue of when property damage occurred presented a question of fact. [12] Its ruling that the homeowner's decision to replace the plumbing system triggers coverage was an express recognition of the fact that property damage may precede a leak. It is the objective factual evidence of pre-leak damage that constitutes the trigger, however, not the homeowner's subjective decision to replace the system. See Collins v. Pittsburgh-Corning, Del.Supr., 673 A.2d 159 (1996) (subjective belief regarding medical condition). The record reflects genuine questions of material fact about when injury-in-fact and property damage took place. HCC presented evidence that the alleged property damage may have taken place over time through a process of cracking, deterioration, or corrosion commencing at installation. Therefore, the Superior Court was precluded from granting the Insurance Companies' motion for summary judgment. Accord Collins v. Pittsburgh Corning, 673 A.2d at 161.