Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance v. St. John
106 A.3d 1
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Appellants are John D. St. John and Kathy M. St. John who sued to challenge Penn National’s liability for a judgment against LPH Plumbing under four Penn National CGL policies (2003–2004, 2004–2005, 2005–2006) and an umbrella policy (2005–2006).
- Underlying suit against LPH Plumbing and Stoltzfus for negligent installation of a dairy-farm plumbing system caused gray water exposure to Appellants’ dairy herd beginning July 2003; the herd developed health problems and reduced milk production from April 2004 onward.
- Jury awarded Appellants $3.5 million plus delay damages; Penn National settled part of judgment for $1.2 million under one policy and retained remaining claims.
- Penn National filed a declaratory judgment action to determine which policy periods (and umbrella) covered the damages; four policies each with $1 million limits, in effect July 1, 2003–July 1, 2006.
- The trial court held only the 2003–2004 policy was triggered under the first manifestation rule; Superior Court affirmed; Appellants contend multiple-trigger theory could apply to continuous, progressive property damage.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to determine the trigger of coverage under the Penn National policies and whether the multiple-trigger theory applies to continuous property damage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether property damage first manifested in April 2004, triggering the 2003–2004 policy. | Appellants argue manifestation occurred in March 2006 or was continuous through 2004–2006. | Penn National argues manifestation occurred in April 2004, triggering the 2003–2004 policy only. | Yes; first manifestation in April 2004. |
| Whether manifestation requires knowledge of the injury’s cause. | Appellants contend knowledge of the outside cause is needed to manifest. | Penn National contends manifestation is of injury itself, not its cause, under the policy language. | No; manifestation does not require ascertainment of the cause. |
| Whether the multiple-trigger theory applies to continuous, progressive property damage. | Appellants urge applying J.H. France to trigger all policies during exposure through manifestation. | Penn National urges limiting to first policy under first-manifestation rule; no extension to continuous damage. | Declined to apply multiple-trigger theory; only the 2003–2004 policy is triggered. |
Key Cases Cited
- D'Auria v. Zurich Insurance Co., 352 Pa. Super. 231, 507 A.2d 857 (Pa. Super. 1986) (first manifestation rule—injury manifests when injurious effects apparent)
- Appalachian Ins. Co., 676 F.2d 56 (3d Cir. 1982) (occurrence when injuries first manifest themselves)
- Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Amer., 710 A.2d 82 (Pa. Super. 1998) (first manifestation rule adopted; retained in subsequent rule)
- J.H. France Refractories Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 534 Pa. 29, 626 A.2d 502 (Pa. 1993) (multiple trigger theory in asbestos cases; not extended here)
- Baumhammers v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 595 Pa. 147, 938 A.2d 286 (2007) ( adopts ‘cause of loss’ approach for number of occurrences; latent disease context cited)
- Keene Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 667 F.2d 1034 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (latency rationale for multiple triggers in asbestos cases)
- Koppers Co., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 98 F.3d 1440 (3d Cir. 1996) (joint/Several liability context; referenced in broader discussion)