BOYLE, GENTILE, LEONARD & CROCKETT, P.A. WINS SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING INJURY-INFACT- TRIGGER AND REQUIRING INSURANCE COMPANY TO DEFEND.

Axis Surplus Insurance Company v. Contravest Construction, et al., 2012 WL 2048303 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2012) involves an insurance dispute in a construction setting. More specifically, the insurance company in that case disputed whether it was required to defend its insured, the general contractor, because it  claimed that the loss occurred outside of the policy period. The carrier denied coverage, relying on allegations in the complaint that the loss did not manifest, meaning become observable, until after its policy of insurance had expired. In an effort to get Axis to participate in the loss, we argued that Axis was required to defend the lawsuit because the allegations of the complaint, at least potentially, appeared to have implicated damages actually occurring during Axis’s insurance policy. Notwithstanding the existence of some prior cases in favor of Axis, the court held that because the complaint against the general contractor at least alleged some potential damages which actually occurred during Axis’s policy period, Axis was required to defend the general contractor. The underlying case and the coverage case resolved shortly after this ruling. This is one of the most definitive rulings about the so-called “trigger” of coverage issue in Florida in recent years, and likely represents a trend away from the so-called “manifestation” trigger.