The Strausses insured the home with a number of policies (collectively, “the Policy”) issued by Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company, Vigilant Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company, and Great Northern Insurance Company (collectively, “the Chubb Defendants”) from October 1994 to October 2005. Ass'n v. N. Am. We restrict our interpretation of coverage of the various policies to the language of the insurance contracts.Creating a bright-line rule at the Chubb Defendants' request because they perhaps regret the language they drafted for the Policy would be an inappropriate interference with the parties' rights to contract. But this statute of limitations is not absolute; parties to an insurance contract are free to alter the length of a statute of limitations and the date that the limitation period begins to run. Co. v. Rodriguez, 88 S.W.3d 313 (Tex.App.2004); John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. v. Factory Mut. It is not the province of this Court to alter the unambiguous terms of the Policy.Here, while there was only one ongoing occurrence as defined by the Policy, there was continual, recurring damage to the property with each successive rainfall. 235 (Va.Cir.Ct.1993); Jackson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Chubb Professional Indemnity Insurance covers against professional risks, including errors & omissions, defamation, and intellectual property infringement.
Emp'rs Ins. Ins. Jones v. Secura Ins. Continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions unless excluded is considered to be one occurrence.” Under the Policy taken out by the Strausses, a “ ‘covered loss' includes all risk of physical loss to [the] house or other property ․ unless stated otherwise or an exclusion applies.” In addition, the Policy includes a “Legal Action Against Us” clause, mandating that any action against the Chubb Defendants be brought “within one year after a loss occurs.”The Chubb Defendants argue that the Policy language requires the application of the manifestation trigger theory because “loss” in the definition of “occurrence” is not qualified by “physical” and therefore means loss discovery or manifestation. Under the manifestation trigger theory, only the insurer that bears the risk at the time the loss manifests or can be discerned is responsible for indemnification once coverage is found to exist. Family Mut. The lack of support for limiting the continuous trigger theory to the third-party liability context from Wisconsin courts we noted in Miller still exists today. The infiltration was ongoing and progressive in nature, beginning around the time of original construction and continuously occurring with each subsequent rainfall. Prudential–LMI Commercial Ins.
Wis. Stat.
Plastics, 759 N.W.2d at 626. Co. v. Voigt, 176 U.S. 498, 505 (1900) (“the usual and most important function of courts of justice is rather to maintain and enforce contracts than to enable parties thereto to escape from their obligation on the pretext of public policy”); Kuhl Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 270 Wis. 488, 71 N.W.2d 420, 423 (1955). Co., 249 Wis.2d 623, 638 N.W.2d 575, 577 n. 5 (2002); Borgen v. Econ. Wis. Stat.
The parties do not dispute that the Strausses filed suit within one year of manifestation of the water infiltration. § 8371. Co. v. CB Entm't, No.