Nicholas A. Taylor
ABSTRACT
“Trigger of coverage theories are described as ‘judicial gatekeepers,’ matching specified claims to particular policies. They identify which insurance policies may have to respond to particular claims and, consequently, have a strong influence on the ultimate resolution of cases.” –Gregory A. Goodman
Triggers of coverage in liability insurance coverage disputes often play a large role in determining which insurance policies, and thereby which insurers, will be forced to respond to a particular claim. The triggers of coverage to be applied are not written into the insurance policies, however. Rather, they are tests to be adopted by judges and applied by factfinders in determining which insurers had policies in effect that are triggered for the purpose of providing coverage to the insured. Therefore, judges hold a vast amount of power in making the final judgment as to how an insurance claim may play out. The four theories judges generally have to choose from are the “manifestation trigger,” the “exposure trigger,” the “injury-in-fact trigger,” and the “continuous trigger.”
Insurance law varies from state to state, and therefore, the theories judges will apply under certain circumstances may also vary from state to state. Currently, Pennsylvania courts apply continuous trigger in cases alleging delayed manifestation bodily injuries. However, Pennsylvania courts have applied manifestation trigger in some cases alleging continuous, progressive property damage. This Comment focuses on this split in authority in Pennsylvania. Based on the relevant language of the insurance policies, general principles of insurance policy interpretation, and the similarities between delayed manifestation bodily injuries and continuous, progressive property damage, this Comment concludes that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania should apply continuous trigger in cases involving continuous, progressive property damage.