Opinion ID: 1870584
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the trigger (or timing) of coverage

Text: The courts nationwide have split over the proper theory to be applied for determining the trigger of coverage, with three primary theories emerging: (1) the exposure theory; [51] (2) the manifestation theory; [52] and (3) the continuous or triple trigger theory. [53] As these theories have been the subject of extensive commentary, both judicial and scholarly, we will not prolong this already lengthy opinion by paraphrasing those prior writings, which are cited throughout this opinion. Instead, for the reasons set forth below, we find that the exposure theory is a sound one and adopt that theory as a precept of this court. Our adoption of the exposure theory is in accord with the federal Fifth Circuit's holding in Porter v. American Optical Corp., 641 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1109, 102 S.Ct. 686, 70 L.Ed.2d 650 (1981), reh'g denied, 455 U.S. 1009, 102 S.Ct. 1649, 71 L.Ed.2d 878 (1982), finding, pursuant to Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), the exposure theory to be the law of Louisiana. See also Ducre, 752 F.2d at 992 (characterizing Porter, supra, as equating bodily injury with exposure). Briefly stated, the exposure theory provides that coverage is triggered by the mere exposure to the harmful conditions during the policy period. [54] In Porter, supra, the federal Fifth Circuit in adopting the exposure theory incorporated by reference the reasons for adopting that theory set forth in Insurance Co. of North America v. Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 633 F.2d 1212 (6th Cir.1980), reh'g granted, in part, clarified, 657 F.2d 814 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1109, 102 S.Ct. 686, 70 L.Ed.2d 650 (1981). In Forty-Eight Insulations, supra, the federal Sixth Circuit gave three reasons why it adopted the exposure theory. First, the exposure theory comports with a literal construction of the policy language: `[b]odily injury' should be construed to include the tissue damage which takes place upon initial inhalation of asbestos. 633 F.2d at 1223. In so finding, the Court relied heavily on the medical evidence, indicating that [i]njury, in the sense that there is tissue damage, occurs shortly after the initial inhalation of asbestos fibers.... [with e]ach additional inhalation of asbestos fibers result[ing] in the build-up of additional scar tissue in the lungs. Id. at 1218. Second, under the facts, the exposure theory would maximize coverage. Id. at 1222. Third, the exposure theory honors the contracting parties' intent by providing for consistency between the insured's tort liability and the insurer's coverage: The contracting parties would expect coverage to parallel the theory of liability. Id. at 1219. See Comment, Asbestosis: Who Will Pay The Plaintiff?, 57 Tul.L.Rev. 1491, 1506-1507 (1983). [55] The sound basis underlying the exposure theory was aptly articulated in Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Sepco Corp., 765 F.2d 1543, 1546 (11th Cir.1985): [T]he exposure theory is more accurately analyzed as positing not that each inhalation of asbestos fibers results in bodily injury, but rather that every asbestos-related injury results from inhalation of asbestos fibers. Because such inhalation can occur only upon exposure to asbestos, and because it is impossible practically to determine the point at which the fibers actually imbed themselves in the victim's lungs, to equate exposure to asbestos with bodily injury caused by the inhalation of the asbestos is the superior interpretation of the contract provisions. Forty-Eight Insulations, 633 F.2d at 1223.