Ins. Co., 676 F.2d at 61 (“in this type of case the occurrence takes place when the injuries first manifest themselves”); see also Consulting Engineers, 710 A.2d 82 (applying the first manifestation rule as articulated in D'Auria); Keystone Automated Equipment Co., Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 369 Pa.Super. 472, 535 A.2d 648 (1988) (same); Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co., 109 F.3d 156 (same); Fletcher v. Pennsylvania Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 27 A.3d 299 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (same). The cases Appellants rely on where the first manifestation of injury coincides with the identification of the cause of injury are distinguishable, as the correlation in these cases between manifestation of injury and identification of its cause is merely incidental. See D'Auria, 352 Pa.Super. 231, 507 A.2d 857 (<HOLDING>); Consulting Engineers, 710 A.2d 82 (holding
holding that cause of action accrued no later than date plaintiffs physician advised her to switch from vinyl to latex gloves even though physician did not then discuss latex allergy with her holding that patient suffering from the destruction of healthy lung tissue due to physicians failure to diagnose cancer was sufficient for negligent infliction of emotional distress holding that the effects of injury caused by a doctors failure to diagnose manifested no later than the date renal failure was discovered by an alternative physician holding that the patientphysician privilege does not prevent testimony by a physician as to the fact that he was consulted by a patient on a certain date recognizing physician assistant as agent of the supervising physician