Washington number of “occurrences”

In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Valiant Ins. Co., No. 63692-8-I (Wash. Ct. App. April 12, 2010), the property owner sued the general contractor for property damage resulting from continuous water intrusion over a six year period post completion, caused by a number of construction defects in the building envelope, including windows, stucco, and roofing.    Multiple insurers contributed towards a settlement, with Zurich paying a one “occurrence” limit.  One of the other settling insurers sued Zurich for equitable contribution and subrogation, asserting that there was more than one “occurrence.”   The trial court entered summary judgment for Zurich, holding there was a single “occurrence.”  The intermediate appellate court affirmed.   Rejecting the argument that each cause of the water damage constituted a separate “occurrence,” the court focused on the “continuous and repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions” element of the definition of “occurrence.”