What a way to skin a cat (bond)

I was wandering around cyberspace when I found this interesting bit of information here; so, come wander with me and see where we end up.

The Dallas, San Antonio and Austin Courts of Appeals have adopted the “manifestation rule” in holding that property damage occurs at the time the damage manifests, which they further define as when the damage becomes apparent or identifiable.

In contrast, the Houston Courts of Appeals have rejected the manifestation rule in favor of the “exposure rule” for injuries “caused by continuous or repeated exposure to conditions during a policy period.”

These two opposing views are squarely presented to the Texas Supreme Court for determination in the Don’s Building Supply and Pine Oak Builders cases and their outcome will significantly impact coverage in property damage cases.

Well, that reminded me of a neighbor whose house took a four-tree whack from Katrina with seemingly little damage. Two years later, the back wall had to be taken off one of the bedrooms because one of those whacks did something that let water seep between the interior and exterior wall when it rained – a fact my neighbor stumbled into (literally) one day when she tripped, fell backward and a butt-shaped hole manifested in her very soft bedroom wall as a result.

Naturally, that reminded me of Katrina’s wind and water and the anti-concurrent cause clause. Continue reading “What a way to skin a cat (bond)”