Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Insurance Co

In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Insurance Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645, the California Supreme Court stated the "general rule" as " 'the time of the occurrence of an accident within the meaning of an indemnity policy is not the time the wrongful act was committed, but the time when the complaining party was actually damaged.' " (Id. at p. 670.) In that case, the court was considering continuous or progressive property damage or personal injury, either of which may serve to trigger coverage of a third-party liability policy. (Id. at p. 666.) The court explained the "trigger of coverage" term in a footnote as follows: "In the third party liability insurance context, 'trigger of coverage' has been used by insureds and insurers alike to denote the circumstances that activate the insurer's defense and indemnity obligations under the policy. The term 'trigger of coverage' should not be misunderstood as a doctrine to be automatically invoked by a court to conclusively establish coverage in certain categories of cases, or under certain types of policies. The word 'trigger' is not found in the CGL policies themselves, nor does the Insurance Code enumerate or define 'trigger of coverage.' Instead, 'trigger of coverage' is a term of convenience used to describe that which, under the specific terms of an insurance policy, must happen in the policy period in order for the potential of coverage to arise. The issue is largely one of timing-what must take place within the policy's effective dates for the potential of coverage to be 'triggered'? Whether coverage is ultimately established in any given case may depend on the consideration of many additional factors, including the existence of express conditions or exclusions in the particular contract of insurance under scrutiny, the availability of certain defenses that might defeat coverage, and a determination of whether the facts of the case will support a finding of coverage." (Id. at p. 655, fn. 2.)