Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

New Jersey recognizes and applies the continuous-trigger theory of insurance coverage to claims involving progressive damage to property caused by an insured’s allegedly defective construction work.

January 19, 2018
Air Master [Heating] & Cooling v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 2017 N.J. Super. LEXIS 144 (App. Div. 2017)

The “last-pull” of the continuous trigger for purposes of determining an “occurrence” happens when the “essential nature and scope of the property damage first becomes known, or when one would have sufficient reason to know of it.” The Appellate Division expressly rejected the notion that that the “last-pull” of the trigger does not occur until there is expert or other proof to implicate the insured’s faulty work.

In reaching this decision, the appellate court examined the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. United Insurance Co., 138 N.J. 437, 454-456 (1994), in which it adopted the continuous-trigger theory for property damage insurance claims that arose from the installation of asbestos-related products. The appellate court indicated that, while instrumental for purposes of adopting the continuous-trigger test, the Owens-Illinois court “[d]eclined to articulate what exactly is the ‘end’ point or the ‘last pull’ of the coverage trigger, for purposes of a progressively-developing injury.” To address this issue, the appellate court turned to Winding Hills Condominium Association, Inc. v. North American Specialty Insurance Co., 332 N.J. Super. 85, 88-93 (App. Div. 2000), which offered that the end point, or “last pull,” be determined by the discovery or awareness of the “essential difficulties” or the “essential” nature of the harm.

Due to the Winding Hill panel’s failure to define “essential” manifestation, the appellate division in the instant matter held “[e]ssential [manifestation]… to connote the revelation of the inherent nature and scope of [the] injury… [o]n one end of the spectrum, manifestation cannot be merely tentative… [n]or must the manifestation be definitive or comprehensive… [t]he critical term ‘essential,’ as used in this coverage context, should be understood and applied with such concepts.”

 

Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018

Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2018 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."