Opinion ID: 160332
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Progressive damages

Text: 35 Signature first submits that the progressive and continuous nature of damages to the subject homes is evidence that property damage resulted in physical injury to the tangible property under the policy. Rec. vol. 3 at R01060. Signature offers two cases to support progressive damages in the subject homes: Public Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Wallis & Cos., 986 P.2d 924 (Colo. 1999) and American Employers Ins. Co. v. Pinkard Constr., 806 P.2d 954, 955 (Colo. App. 1990). Neither case, however, bolsters Signature's arguments. 36 In Wallis & Cos., environmental damages necessitating remediation were sustained over a period of several years. The Colorado Supreme Court focused on the allocation formula that should be applied to multiple insurers should a particular insurer be found liable at trial. See 986 P.2d at 935-36. Although potentially relevant to provide an allocation method should coverage be established, Wallis & Cos. has no application where there is no evidence that the homes covered by Royal sustained damage during the coverage period. 37 Next, American Employers involved continuous damages to a roof that was insured by multiple carriers. The court noted that [w]hen actual damages were sustained is difficult to assess in a situation in which, as here, the property damage occurred progressively over a period of time. 806 P.2d at 956. The evidence of damages, although not immediately apparent... shows that progressive and continuous deterioration of the roof infected the integrity of the structure causing actual property damage during the respective policy periods. Id. Although it provides a helpful definition of progressive damages, American Employers presupposes irrefutable evidence of damages during the relevant coverage period: It is undisputed that corrosion occurred during each policy period. Consequently, we conclude that there was an `occurrence' triggering coverage under each policy. Id. 38 In contrast, we have here only the report of Royal's independent investigator, which does not establish specific damages to any of the homes covered under the Royal policy. Mr. Aiello's report in fact suggested that the damage may have resulted from poor workmanship which would be excluded under the policy. Rec. vol. II at R00314. Without more, we cannot determine that there exists genuine issue of material fact as to when the damages occurred. 39 In its response to Royal's motion for summary judgment, Signature averred that some of the Royal homes... sustained significant damage. Rec. vol. 2, tab 11 at 6. Signature provided only one address that sustained approximately $30,000 in damage and required a new floor. This home was at initially covered by Royal's policy, but Signature provided no evidence that the damage occurred during Royal's policy period.