Mary Beth Forshaw | Simpson Thacher
Standard commercial general liability policies
What constitutes bodily injury under a standard CGL policy?
Insurance coverage litigation frequently centres on whether the underlying claims against the policyholder allege bodily injury or property damage within the meaning of the applicable insurance policy, and whether the events giving rise to the injury or damage were caused by an occurrence.
The phrase ‘bodily injury’ in insurance contracts generally connotes a physical problem. However, a number of courts have ruled that the term also encompasses non-physical or emotional distress, either standing alone or accompanied by physical manifestations.
The question of whether bodily injury exists may also arise where an underlying complaint alleges non-traditional or quasi-physical harm, such as biological or cellular level injury or medical monitoring claims. Courts addressing these and other analogous bodily injury questions have arrived at mixed decisions. Bodily injury determinations are often case-specific, turning on the particular factual record presented.
What constitutes property damage under a standard CGL policy?
Property damage typically requires injury to or loss of use of tangible property. Therefore, the mere risk of future damage is generally insufficient to constitute property damage. Similarly, it is generally held that the inclusion of a defective component in a product, standing alone, does not constitute property damage. Numerous other allegations of harm or potential harm to property have generally been deemed to fall outside the scope of covered property damage, including the following:
- injury to intangible property (such as computer data);
- injury to goodwill or reputation;
- pure economic loss; and
- diminished property value.
However, although economic loss is not equated with property damage, courts may use a policyholder’s economic loss as a measure of damages for property damage where physical damage is found to exist.
What constitutes an occurrence under a standard CGL policy?
Virtually all modern-day general liability insurance policies provide coverage for an occurrence that takes place during the policy period. The insurance term ‘occurrence’ is typically equated with or defined as an accident or an event that results in damage or injury that was unexpected and unintended by the policyholder.
Insurance litigation frequently involves several issues relating to the occurrence requirement:
- whether intentional conduct that results in unexpected or unintended harm constitutes an occurrence;
- whether negligent conduct that results in expected or intended harm constitutes an occurrence;
- whether an event or series of events constitutes a single occurrence or multiple occurrences;
- whether the occurrence falls within a given policy period (ie, what is the operative event that triggers a policy?); and
- how insurance obligations should be divided among multiple insurers (or the policyholder) when an occurrence spans multiple policy periods (ie, allocation).
Although it is a widely accepted principle that insurance policies provide coverage only for fortuitous events, and cannot insure against intentional or wilful conduct, it is less clear whether (and under what circumstances) intentional conduct that results in unexpected and unforeseen damage can constitute a covered occurrence. This question has arisen in a multitude of factual contexts, including claims arising out of faulty workmanship, pollution and fax blasting in violation of federal statutes. In evaluating the occurrence issue, some courts focus on the initial conduct of the policyholder, while other courts look to whether the resulting harm was unexpected or unintended.
How is the number of covered occurrences determined?
The determination of whether damage or injury is caused by a single occurrence or by multiple occurrences has significant implications for available coverage. The number of occurrences may impact both the policyholder’s responsibility for deductible payments and the per occurrence policy limits that are available. Thus, it is a hotly contested issue in insurance litigation. Most courts utilise a cause-based analysis to determine the number of occurrences. Under the cause-oriented approach, if there is one proximate cause of the injury, there is one occurrence, regardless of the number of claims or incidents of harm.
In contrast, under an effects-oriented analysis, the focus is on the number of discrete injury-causing events.
A number of occurrences disputes arise in virtually all substantive areas of insurance litigation, including claims arising out of asbestos, environmental harm, natural disasters, and the manufacture or distribution of harmful products.
What event or events trigger insurance coverage?
Litigation that centres on whether a given policy period has been implicated by an occurrence is generally referred to as a ‘trigger of coverage’ dispute. ‘Trigger’ describes what must happen within the policy period for an insurer’s coverage obligations to be implicated. In cases involving ongoing or continuous property damage or personal injury, the question of what triggers policy coverage may be complex. From a legal perspective, courts employ several different methods to resolve trigger disputes. For bodily injury claims, the operative trigger event has been held to be:
- at the time of exposure to a harmful substance;
- at the time the injury manifests itself;
- at the time of actual ‘injury in fact’; or
- a combination or inclusion of all of the above.
Property damage claims have also given rise to multiple trigger approaches, some of which focus on the initial event that set the property damage into motion, while others look to the time that physical damage became evident. From a factual perspective, parties are often required to submit voluminous evidence in support of their position as to when property damage or bodily injury actually occurred. Expert witnesses are often retained to address trigger issues.
How is insurance coverage allocated across multiple insurance policies?
When an occurrence triggers multiple policy periods, disputes frequently arise as to how indemnity costs should be allocated among various insurers. The emerging trend in courts in the United States is a pro rata approach, which apportions loss among triggered policies based on insurers’ proportionate responsibilities. In applying pro rata allocation, courts have considered:
- the time that each insurer is on the risk;
- the policy limits of each triggered policy;
- the proportion of injuries during each policy; or
- a combination of these and other factors.
Pro rata allocation also typically contemplates policyholder responsibility for periods of no coverage or insufficient coverage. The pro rata allocation approach stems from policy language that limits insurers’ obligations to damage ‘during the policy period’. Some jurisdictions that utilise a pro rata approach recognise an ‘unavailabilty’ exception. The unavailability exception provides that apportionment to the insured for uninsured periods is not warranted if insurance was unavailable in the marketplace during the relevant time frame. If this unavailability is established, losses during the uninsured periods are allocated among the insurers.
A minority of courts endorse a joint and several liability approach, under which a policyholder is entitled to select a single policy from multiple triggered policies from which to seek indemnification. This approach stems from common policy language requiring an insurer to pay ‘all sums’ that the policyholder becomes legally obligated to pay. Notably, even courts that endorse all sums allocation typically allow a targeted insurer to pursue contributions from other triggered insurers.
Law stated date
Give the date on which the information above is accurate.
18 December 2019