In Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau (60 AD3d 128 [1st Dept 2008]), a case involving an insurer's obligation to defend and indemnify an insured resulting from claims of bodily injury arising from exposure to asbestos over time, the appellate court rejected the "exposure rule" in favor of the "injury-in-fact" test. Under the exposure rule, injury is deemed to occur during the period of exposure to a toxic substance, even though physical manifestations may not occur for years, or decades, later. Conversely, "an injury-in-fact test rests on when the injury, sickness, disease or disability actually began and, ... comports most closely with general principles of tort and insurance law." (Id. at 148.)