Empathy List Archives

PS

Pence, Scott

Mon, Aug 19, 2013 5:39 PM

FYI - I am forwarding the information below from Craig Stanovich, which relates to the question regarding the trigger in Florida (i.e. manifestation versus injury-in-fact) and the resulting conversation from our call this afternoon.

[Carlton Fields]
Scott Pence
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000
Tampa, Florida 33607-5780
Direct: 813.229.4322 | Fax: 813.229.4133

From: Craig Stanovich [mailto:cstanovich@austinstanovich.com]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:41 PM
To: Pence, Scott
Subject: RE: [Liability Insurance] Florida Bar Insurance & Surety Committee Telephone Conference

Scott:

Thanks for the invitation - I hope that this was helpful to the participants.

As respects Florida's manifestation trigger (and for whatever it is worth and is the basis for my comments), this is from a treatise - General Liability Insurance Coverage - Key Issues in Every State - Randy Maniloff and Jeffrey Stempel (Second Edition- 2012) at 417:

"The manifestation trigger, which, by definition, limits coverage to a single policy year, was often advocated by insurers. However, it is the clear minority view."

As respects Florida, the treatise states at 446: "The Eleventh Circuit of Appeals rejected a manifestation trigger and adopted an injury-in-fact trigger for the purposes of damage caused by construction defects." And separately at 423: "A Florida District Court applied an injury-in-fact trigger to claims for environmental property damage."

Best regards,

Craig F. Stanovich, CPCU, CIC, CRM, AU
Principal Consultant
Austin & Stanovich Risk Managers LLC
1174 Main Street
Holden, MA 01520
Email: cstanovich@austinstanovich.com mailto:cstanovich@austinstanovich.com
Website: www.austinstanovich.com http://www.austinstanovich.com
Phone: 888-540-7604 xt. 102
Fax: 888-650-7803

FYI - I am forwarding the information below from Craig Stanovich, which relates to the question regarding the trigger in Florida (i.e. manifestation versus injury-in-fact) and the resulting conversation from our call this afternoon. [Carlton Fields] Scott Pence 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000 Tampa, Florida 33607-5780 Direct: 813.229.4322 | Fax: 813.229.4133 From: Craig Stanovich [mailto:cstanovich@austinstanovich.com] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:41 PM To: Pence, Scott Subject: RE: [Liability Insurance] Florida Bar Insurance & Surety Committee Telephone Conference Scott: Thanks for the invitation - I hope that this was helpful to the participants. As respects Florida's manifestation trigger (and for whatever it is worth and is the basis for my comments), this is from a treatise - General Liability Insurance Coverage - Key Issues in Every State - Randy Maniloff and Jeffrey Stempel (Second Edition- 2012) at 417: "The manifestation trigger, which, by definition, limits coverage to a single policy year, was often advocated by insurers. However, it is the clear minority view." As respects Florida, the treatise states at 446: "The Eleventh Circuit of Appeals rejected a manifestation trigger and adopted an injury-in-fact trigger for the purposes of damage caused by construction defects." And separately at 423: "A Florida District Court applied an injury-in-fact trigger to claims for environmental property damage." Best regards, Craig F. Stanovich, CPCU, CIC, CRM, AU Principal Consultant Austin & Stanovich Risk Managers LLC 1174 Main Street Holden, MA 01520 Email: cstanovich@austinstanovich.com<mailto:cstanovich@austinstanovich.com> Website: www.austinstanovich.com<http://www.austinstanovich.com> Phone: 888-540-7604 xt. 102 Fax: 888-650-7803

DC

Debbie Crockett

Mon, Aug 19, 2013 6:01 PM

Attached is the 2012 Florida Middle District Axis decision on trigger.
If anyone wants the name of some other Florida cases, let me know; I am happy to provide.

         Debbie Sines Crockett, Esq.

[cid:image001.jpg@01CE9CE4.898B5710]

From: liability_insurance-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:liability_insurance-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Pence, Scott
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:40 PM
To: liability_insurance@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [Liability Insurance] FW: Florida Bar Insurance & Surety Committee Telephone Conference

FYI - I am forwarding the information below from Craig Stanovich, which relates to the question regarding the trigger in Florida (i.e. manifestation versus injury-in-fact) and the resulting conversation from our call this afternoon.

[cid:image004.png@01CE9CE3.ED1CA5F0]
Scott Pence
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000
Tampa, Florida 33607-5780
Direct: 813.229.4322 | Fax: 813.229.4133

From: Craig Stanovich [mailto:cstanovich@austinstanovich.com]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:41 PM
To: Pence, Scott
Subject: RE: [Liability Insurance] Florida Bar Insurance & Surety Committee Telephone Conference

Scott:

Thanks for the invitation - I hope that this was helpful to the participants.

As respects Florida's manifestation trigger (and for whatever it is worth and is the basis for my comments), this is from a treatise - General Liability Insurance Coverage - Key Issues in Every State - Randy Maniloff and Jeffrey Stempel (Second Edition- 2012) at 417:

"The manifestation trigger, which, by definition, limits coverage to a single policy year, was often advocated by insurers. However, it is the clear minority view."

As respects Florida, the treatise states at 446: "The Eleventh Circuit of Appeals rejected a manifestation trigger and adopted an injury-in-fact trigger for the purposes of damage caused by construction defects." And separately at 423: "A Florida District Court applied an injury-in-fact trigger to claims for environmental property damage."

Best regards,

Craig F. Stanovich, CPCU, CIC, CRM, AU
Principal Consultant
Austin & Stanovich Risk Managers LLC
1174 Main Street
Holden, MA 01520
Email: cstanovich@austinstanovich.com mailto:cstanovich@austinstanovich.com
Website: www.austinstanovich.com http://www.austinstanovich.com
Phone: 888-540-7604 xt. 102
Fax: 888-650-7803

Attached is the 2012 Florida Middle District Axis decision on trigger. If anyone wants the name of some other Florida cases, let me know; I am happy to provide. Debbie Sines Crockett, Esq. [cid:image001.jpg@01CE9CE4.898B5710] From: liability_insurance-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:liability_insurance-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Pence, Scott Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:40 PM To: liability_insurance@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: [Liability Insurance] FW: Florida Bar Insurance & Surety Committee Telephone Conference FYI - I am forwarding the information below from Craig Stanovich, which relates to the question regarding the trigger in Florida (i.e. manifestation versus injury-in-fact) and the resulting conversation from our call this afternoon. [cid:image004.png@01CE9CE3.ED1CA5F0] Scott Pence 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000 Tampa, Florida 33607-5780 Direct: 813.229.4322 | Fax: 813.229.4133 From: Craig Stanovich [mailto:cstanovich@austinstanovich.com] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:41 PM To: Pence, Scott Subject: RE: [Liability Insurance] Florida Bar Insurance & Surety Committee Telephone Conference Scott: Thanks for the invitation - I hope that this was helpful to the participants. As respects Florida's manifestation trigger (and for whatever it is worth and is the basis for my comments), this is from a treatise - General Liability Insurance Coverage - Key Issues in Every State - Randy Maniloff and Jeffrey Stempel (Second Edition- 2012) at 417: "The manifestation trigger, which, by definition, limits coverage to a single policy year, was often advocated by insurers. However, it is the clear minority view." As respects Florida, the treatise states at 446: "The Eleventh Circuit of Appeals rejected a manifestation trigger and adopted an injury-in-fact trigger for the purposes of damage caused by construction defects." And separately at 423: "A Florida District Court applied an injury-in-fact trigger to claims for environmental property damage." Best regards, Craig F. Stanovich, CPCU, CIC, CRM, AU Principal Consultant Austin & Stanovich Risk Managers LLC 1174 Main Street Holden, MA 01520 Email: cstanovich@austinstanovich.com<mailto:cstanovich@austinstanovich.com> Website: www.austinstanovich.com<http://www.austinstanovich.com> Phone: 888-540-7604 xt. 102 Fax: 888-650-7803

BP

Bruce Partington

Mon, Aug 19, 2013 10:10 PM

Was in depositions today so missed the meeting, but the attached article
from the Florida Bar Journal article is a good summary.

Bruce D. Partington

Clark Partington

bpartington@cphlaw.com mailto:bpartington@cphlaw.com

Direct: 850-432-1399

Fax: 850-432-7340

*Board Certified in Construction Law

NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments are private
communication sent by the law firm of Clark Partington Hart Larry Bond &
Stackhouse, and may contain confidential, legally privileged information
meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and
delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.

From: liability_insurance-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:liability_insurance-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Debbie Crockett
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:01 PM
To: Pence, Scott; liability_insurance@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [Liability Insurance] FW: Florida Bar Insurance &Surety
Committee Telephone Conference

Attached is the 2012 Florida Middle District Axis decision on trigger.

If anyone wants the name of some other Florida cases, let me know; I am
happy to provide.

         Debbie Sines Crockett, Esq.

From: liability_insurance-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [
mailto:liability_insurance-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Pence, Scott
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:40 PM
To: liability_insurance@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [Liability Insurance] FW: Florida Bar Insurance & Surety
Committee Telephone Conference

FYI - I am forwarding the information below from Craig Stanovich, which
relates to the question regarding the trigger in Florida (i.e.
manifestation versus injury-in-fact) and the resulting conversation from
our call this afternoon.

Scott Pence
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000
Tampa, Florida 33607-5780
Direct: 813.229.4322 | Fax: 813.229.4133

From: Craig Stanovich [mailto:cstanovich@austinstanovich.com]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:41 PM
To: Pence, Scott
Subject: RE: [Liability Insurance] Florida Bar Insurance & Surety
Committee Telephone Conference

Scott:

Thanks for the invitation - I hope that this was helpful to the
participants.

As respects Florida's manifestation trigger (and for whatever it is
worth and is the basis for my comments), this is from a treatise -
General Liability Insurance Coverage - Key Issues in Every State - Randy
Maniloff and Jeffrey Stempel (Second Edition- 2012) at 417:

"The manifestation trigger, which, by definition, limits coverage to a
single policy year, was often advocated by insurers. However, it is the
clear minority view."

As respects Florida, the treatise states at 446: "The Eleventh Circuit
of Appeals rejected a manifestation trigger and adopted an
injury-in-fact trigger for the purposes of damage caused by construction
defects." And separately at 423: "A Florida District Court applied an
injury-in-fact trigger to claims for environmental property damage."

Best regards,

Craig F. Stanovich, CPCU, CIC, CRM, AU

Principal Consultant

Austin & Stanovich Risk Managers LLC

1174 Main Street

Holden, MA 01520

Email: cstanovich@austinstanovich.com

Website: www.austinstanovich.com

Phone: 888-540-7604 xt. 102

Fax: 888-650-7803

Was in depositions today so missed the meeting, but the attached article from the Florida Bar Journal article is a good summary. Bruce D. Partington Clark Partington bpartington@cphlaw.com <mailto:bpartington@cphlaw.com> Direct: 850-432-1399 Fax: 850-432-7340 *Board Certified in Construction Law NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by the law firm of Clark Partington Hart Larry Bond & Stackhouse, and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you. From: liability_insurance-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:liability_insurance-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Debbie Crockett Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:01 PM To: Pence, Scott; liability_insurance@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: Re: [Liability Insurance] FW: Florida Bar Insurance &Surety Committee Telephone Conference Attached is the 2012 Florida Middle District Axis decision on trigger. If anyone wants the name of some other Florida cases, let me know; I am happy to provide. Debbie Sines Crockett, Esq. From: liability_insurance-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [ mailto:liability_insurance-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Pence, Scott Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:40 PM To: liability_insurance@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: [Liability Insurance] FW: Florida Bar Insurance & Surety Committee Telephone Conference FYI - I am forwarding the information below from Craig Stanovich, which relates to the question regarding the trigger in Florida (i.e. manifestation versus injury-in-fact) and the resulting conversation from our call this afternoon. Scott Pence 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000 Tampa, Florida 33607-5780 Direct: 813.229.4322 | Fax: 813.229.4133 From: Craig Stanovich [mailto:cstanovich@austinstanovich.com] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:41 PM To: Pence, Scott Subject: RE: [Liability Insurance] Florida Bar Insurance & Surety Committee Telephone Conference Scott: Thanks for the invitation - I hope that this was helpful to the participants. As respects Florida's manifestation trigger (and for whatever it is worth and is the basis for my comments), this is from a treatise - General Liability Insurance Coverage - Key Issues in Every State - Randy Maniloff and Jeffrey Stempel (Second Edition- 2012) at 417: "The manifestation trigger, which, by definition, limits coverage to a single policy year, was often advocated by insurers. However, it is the clear minority view." As respects Florida, the treatise states at 446: "The Eleventh Circuit of Appeals rejected a manifestation trigger and adopted an injury-in-fact trigger for the purposes of damage caused by construction defects." And separately at 423: "A Florida District Court applied an injury-in-fact trigger to claims for environmental property damage." Best regards, Craig F. Stanovich, CPCU, CIC, CRM, AU Principal Consultant Austin & Stanovich Risk Managers LLC 1174 Main Street Holden, MA 01520 Email: cstanovich@austinstanovich.com Website: www.austinstanovich.com Phone: 888-540-7604 xt. 102 Fax: 888-650-7803