Breach of Contract is not an Occurrence
Barry Zalma
Jun 8, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gkjauQQB and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gfefkDTa and at https://lnkd.in/g7cwC_bY and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4500 posts.
In American Home Assurance Company v. Superior Well Services, Inc., No. 22-1498, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (May 31, 2023) American Home Assurance Co. (“American Home”) appealed the District Court’s order grant of summary judgment for policy holder Superior Well Services, Inc. (“Superior”).
BACKGROUND - The Underlying State Law Claim
U.S. Energy contracted with Superior for hydraulic fracking services to extract natural gas from wells owned by U.S. Energy. In November 2007, Superior notified its insurance provider, American Home, about the potential claim for damage to wells. In February 2008, American Home agreed to provide Superior with defense counsel, but it also sent Superior a letter reserving its right to contest insurance coverage.
U.S. Energy sued Superior in New York state court, alleging that Superior had damaged 97 of its wells. After trial the jury found that Superior breached the contract by failing to perform services with reasonable care, skill and diligence. The jury found Superior had damaged 53 of the 97 wells and specified that Superior “fail[ed] to perform its contract with U.S. Energy in a workman like manner” and that this “failure” was “a substantial factor in causing damage to the U.S. Energy wells[.]” Accordingly, it awarded U.S. Energy $6.16 million, a figure that was increased to approximately $13.18 million after the state court tabulated interest.
THE DISPUTE BETWEEN SUPERIOR AND AMERICAN HOME
Superior’s policy provided coverage for “property damage” arising out of an “occurrence.” The policy defined “property damage” as both “[p]hysical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property.”
Superior also purchased an “underground resources and equipment coverage” (“UREC”) endorsement that amended the CGL policy to provide additional coverage “against risks associated with well-servicing operations[.]” Specifically, the endorsement “added” coverage “with respect to ‘property damage’ included within the ‘underground resources and equipment hazard’ arising out of the operations performed by [Superior] or on [Superior’s] behalf[.]”
American Home sued seeking a declaratory judgment that Superior’s policy does not indemnify Superior for any damages that might be awarded to U.S. Energy and which were caused by Superior’s breach of contract.
THE DISTRICT COURT’S OPINION
The District Court granted summary judgment for Superior and, by extension, for U.S. Energy, and it ordered American Home to indemnify Superior for the state court judgment. The Court concluded that each of the 53 damaged wells gave rise to a separate occurrence, triggering an independent coverage limit for each respective well.
DISCUSSION
The definition of “accident” required to establish an “occurrence” under the policies cannot be satisfied by claims based upon faulty workmanship. Such claims simply do not present the degree of fortuity contemplated by the ordinary definition of “accident” or its common judicial construction in this context.
To hold otherwise would be to convert an insurance policy into a performance bond. The Court was unwilling to do so, especially since such protections are already readily available for the protection of contractors.
The UREC endorsement reinstates coverage by providing that the exclusion “does not apply to any ‘property damage’ included within the ‘underground resources and equipment hazard[.]'” Notably, to trigger coverage, the endorsement expressly requires “property damage,” which, under the underlying policy, is covered only if it “is caused by an ‘occurrence.'” The endorsement incorporates the “occurrence” requirement by way of the “property damage” requirement.
No provision in the endorsement implicitly, let alone expressly, repudiates the “occurrence” requirement.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeal concluded that the endorsement does not displace the underlying policy’s occurrence requirement and reversed the District Court’s summary judgment order and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to enter judgment for American Home.
ZALMA OPINION
The key to every liability insurance policy is that for coverage to apply the loss must be fortuitous, that is, it must be neither expected nor intended by the insured and must fit within the generally understood meaning of the term “accident.” Under no definition of fortuity is faulty workmanship by the insured. Since the jury found the insured responsible for its breach of contract by means of faulty workmanship there was no occurrence and no coverage
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; https://creators.newsbreak.com/home/content/post; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
