Opinion ID: 2052528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: This Appeal The Parties' Contentions

Text: HCC asserts that the Superior Court erred in finding that property damage occurs only at the time of a leak in the plumbing system which causes injury to tangible property. In support of this argument, HCC sets forth four contentions. First, HCC argues that, under New York law, any physical damage, no matter how slight, triggers insurance coverage. Second, HCC asserts that the Superior Court could not have properly granted summary judgment to the insurer defendants based on the record before the court. Third, HCC asserts that the incorporation of an allegedly defective product into another product triggers insurance coverage. Finally, HCC asserts that, for purposes of determining trigger of coverage, the insurer defendants should be bound by their prior admissions regarding when property damage occurs. The Insurance Companies disagree with each of HCC's assignments of error. HCC and seven of the Insurance Companies have cross-appealed from the Superior Court's determination that a homeowner's decision to replace the plumbing system triggers insurance coverage. HCC agrees that ruling was incorrect. HCC's reasons differ, however, from those that are asserted by the seven Insurance Companies.