Florida trigger

In United National Ins. Co. v. Best Truss Co., No. 09-22897-CIV-ALTONAGA/Brown (S.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2010), insured Best Truss supplied roof trusses for a building.  Several years after completion, physical injury to the building was observed.  Investigation revealed that the damage was caused by physical defects in the trusses.  Best Truss was sued.  Its CGL insurer, United National, defended under a reservation of rights and filed suit seeking a declaration of no duty to defend or indemnify on the basis that the property damage was not observed until after expiration of the United National policies.  The federal district trial court, applying Florida law, denied United National’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the expert opinion submitted by Best Tress that the property damage to the roof trusses within the enclosed and inaccessible attic area, although not actually observed until after expiration of the policy period, would have been visible upon inspection during the policy period, would constitute manifestation thus creating a genuine issue of material fact.