Circumstances that Could Result in Loss Must be Reported to Insurer
Barry Zalma
Feb 26, 2024
Transcript
This is Barry Zalma speaking for Claims School Incorporated's blog Zalma on Insurance.
Today we're going to explain why an exclusion for failure to advise an insurer of a known potential loss of circumstances that could result in loss will make it difficult if not impossible for the insured to obtain a
Defense or Indemnity from the Insurer.
The Supreme Court, New York County, Barry R. Ostrager J. entered a judgment which denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability for breach of contract
and sought product recall insurance coverage under a set of policies issued to the plaintiffs for the period of March 7, 2018 to 2019.
The order also granted defendants motions for summary judgment in part to the extent of dismissing the plaintiff's second cause of action,
Seeking Liability for Breach of Contract and for Coverage under a Set of Policies Issued to the Plaintiff for the Period March 7, 2019 to March 7, 2020.
In a case called Veyer Holding Company v. Westchester Surplus Lines, the New York Supreme Court on February 15, 2024 affirmed the trial court's decision.
Defendants issued a consumer goods insurance policy on medical devices sold by the plaintiffs.
The year one policy ended on March 7, 2019, at which point the year two policy began.
Each policy was triggered by an insured event discovered in the policy period, provided that Veyer gave written notice as soon as possible, no later than 30 days after discovery of the event.
Additionally, the policies excluded coverage for pre-existing circumstances the VAIR knew or should have known of prior to the inception of the policy that caused or could reasonably have been expected to cause an insured event.
The insured event was defined as a stock recovery, market withdrawal, or recall of an insured product
that could and would cause bodily injury or property damage stock recovery was defined by the policies but market withdrawal and recall were not
The product Enflow, a product insured under the policy, was first approved in 2006.
By 2018, it was used in many different countries.
Prior to March of 2019, there were no reports of patient injury due to aluminum toxicity.
In February 2018, however, Veyer learned of a then unpublished study indicating that Enflo may cause aluminum toxicity when used with a certain infusion.
On February 6, 2019, Veyer learned that the infusion did not contain malate, rather it contained lactate, which was commonly used in medical solutions.
In early March of 2019, Veyer learned that many hospitals in the United Kingdom had ceased using Enflo, and two EU regulatory agencies expressed their intentions to take regulatory action.
As a result, on March 5, 2019, Veyer decided to suspend Enflo use in the EU.
On March 7, 2019, Veyer began to file the paperwork for withdrawal with the FDA.
On March
11, 2019, Veyer's testing revealed unacceptable levels of aluminum leaching with many different infusions and on March 12, 2019, Veyer notified the defendants that they were about to issue a worldwide recall of Enflo and gave notice as to all representative policies and on March 13, 2019,
Mayer issued a global recall notification.
The Supreme Court, New York's trial court, properly determined, according to the appellate division, that coverage for year two was excluded under the prior notice exclusion.
The record established that by March 7 of 2019, Veyer knew or should have known about circumstances that could reasonably have been expected to cause an insured event.
The Supreme Court therefore correctly denied both motions for summary judgment as to the year one policy.
To establish that it satisfied the notification requirement, however, Veyer would have to prove that it discovered the event no earlier than February 10, 2019 and gave notice as soon as possible, before March of 2019.
There were no reported injuries due to aluminum toxicity from Enflo despite its frequent and widespread use.
Moreover, no regulatory agency had yet indicated any intention to recall the product, yet
By that date, Vyair had engaged in extensive communications with foreign regulatory agencies for approximately a year regarding Enflo's possible aluminum toxicity.
Vyair had also conducted its own testing regarding aluminum leaching.
Fyare knew that an infusion containing lactate not malayed leached potentially dangerous amounts of aluminum.
The competing claims, therefore, raise issues of fact as to whether Fyare had a reasonable belief until at least February 10, 2019 that no insured event had occurred.
If not, the coverage would not apply for either policy year.
In my opinion, this case teaches that every insurer of a liability insurance policy, including a products recall policy, should always advise the insurers when it learns of a potential of a loss that would be an insurable event under the policy.
VIAIR failed when it knew there was a potential product with the product and the danger of injury to people using the product.
Bayer failed on one policy year and potentially failed on the earlier year which the court left for the trial court to determine whether Bayer had a reasonable belief until February 10 of 2019 that no insured event had occurred.
The problem and litigation could have been easily resolved
By a Prop Notice of the Indications from the Foreign Regulatory Agencies.
This video was adapted from my blog Zalma on Insurance which is available free to anyone who clicks on the link zalma.com slash blog.
You can subscribe to the blog and you'll be
Give a Notice of Every Blog Posting, usually five or six a week, and you can also gain access to the more than 4,700 blog postings.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about the blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos as well.
They're free.
And if you're more interested in further detail about insurance, insurance law, insurance fraud, and insurance claims, please consider for a very small fee subscribing to my Substack publication.
Thank you for your attention.
Read the full policy at https://lnkd.in/g_4w-RtV, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gcxMcBxQ and at https://lnkd.in/g4wDuRCv and at https://zalma.com/blog and more than 4700 posts.
The Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered a judgment which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to liability for breach of contract and sought product recall insurance coverage under a set of policies issued to plaintiffs for the period of March 7, 2018 to March 7, 2019.
The order also granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment in part, to the extent of dismissing plaintiffs’ second cause of action seeking liability for breach of contract and for coverage under a set of policies issued to plaintiffs for the period of March 7, 2019 to March 7, 2020.
In Vyaire Holding Company et al. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, et al, North American Capacity Insurance Company, 2024 NY Slip Op 00825, Appeal No. 1595, Index No. 652428/20, No. 2022-05619, Supreme Court of New York, First Department (February 15, 2024) the appellate division affirmed the trial court.
FACTS & PRIOR NOTICE EXCLUSION
Defendants issued consumer goods insurance policies on medical devices sold by plaintiffs (collectively, Vyaire). The Year One policy ended on March 7, 2019, at which point the Year Two policy began. Each policy was triggered by an “insured event” discovered in the policy period, provided that Vyaire gave written notice as soon as possible, no later than 30 days after discovery of the event. Additionally, the policies excluded coverage for pre-existing circumstances that Vyaire “knew of or should have known of, prior to the inception of this policy, that caused or could reasonably have been expected to cause… an ‘insured event’.”
The “Insured event” was defined as a” ‘stock recovery,’ market withdrawal or recall” of an insured product that would cause bodily injury or property damage. “Stock recovery” was defined by the policies but “market withdrawal” and “recall” were not.
THE PRODUCT
enFlow, a product insured under the policy, was first approved in 2006. By 2018, it was used in many different countries. Prior to March 2019, there were no reports of patient injury due to aluminum toxicity. In February 2018, however, Vyaire learned of a (then-unpublished) study indicating that enFlow may cause aluminum toxicity when used with a certain infusion. On February 6, 2019, Vyaire learned that the infusion did not contain malate. Rather, it contained lactate, which was commonly used in medical solutions.
In early March 2019, Vyaire learned that many hospitals in the United Kingdom had ceased using enFlow, and two EU regulatory agencies expressed their intentions to take regulatory action. As a result, on March 5, 2019, Vyaire decided to suspend enFlow use in the EU. On March 7, 2019, Vyaire began to file the paperwork for a withdrawal with the FDA. On March 11, 2019, Vyaire’s testing revealed unacceptable levels of aluminum leaching with many different infusions. On March 12, 2019, Vyaire notified defendants that they were about to issue a world-wide recall of enFlow and gave notice as to “all responsive policies.” On March 13, 2019, Vyaire issued a global recall notification.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court (trial court) properly determined that coverage for Year Two was excluded under the prior notice exclusion. The record established that by March 7, 2019 Vyaire knew or should have known about circumstances that could reasonably have been expected to cause an insured event.
The Supreme Court, therefore, correctly denied both motions for summary judgment as to the Year One policy.
To establish that it satisfied the notification requirement, however, Vyaire would have to prove that it discovered the event no earlier than February 10, 2019, and gave notice as soon as possible. Before March 2019, there were no reported injuries due to aluminum toxicity from enFlow, despite its frequent and widespread use. Moreover, no regulatory agency had yet indicated any intention to recall the product.
Yet, by that date, Vyaire had engaged in extensive communications with foreign regulatory agencies for approximately a year regarding enFlow’s possible aluminum toxicity.
Vyaire had also conducted its own testing regarding aluminum leaching. Vyaire knew that an infusion containing lactate, not malate, leached potentially dangerous amounts of aluminum.
The competing claims raise issues of fact as to whether Vyaire had a reasonable belief, until at least February 10, 2019, that no insured event had occurred.
ZALMA OPINION
This case teaches that every insured of a liability insurance policy should always advise the insurers when it learns of a potential of a loss that would be an insurable event under the policy. Vyaire failed when it knew there was a potential problem with the product and the danger of injury to people using the product. Vyaire failed on one policy year and potentially failed on the earlier year which the court left for trial to determine whether Vyaire had a reasonable belief until 2/10/19 that no insured event had occurred. The problem and litigation could have been resolved by a prompt notice.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at; 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.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/g8azKc34; Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Notice of Claim Later than 60 Days After Expiration is Too Late
Post 5089
Injury at Massage Causes Suit Against Therapist
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gziRzFV8, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gF4aYrQ2 and at https://lnkd.in/gqShuGs9, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Hiscox Insurance Company (“Hiscox”) moved the USDC to Dismiss a suit for failure to state a claim because the insured reported its claim more than 60 days after expiration of the policy.
In Mluxe Williamsburg, LLC v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc., et al., No. 4:25-cv-00002, United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division (May 22, 2025) the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, the operator of a massage spa franchise, entered into a commercial insurance agreement with Hiscox that provided liability insurance coverage from July 25, 2019, to July 25, 2020. On or about June 03, 2019, a customer alleged that one of Plaintiff’s employees engaged in tortious ...
ZIFL – Volume 29, Issue 11
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
Posted on June 2, 2025 by Barry Zalma
Post 5087
See the full video at and at
Read the full article and the full issue of ZIFL June 1, 2025 at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-06-01-2025.pdf
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter – June 1, 2025
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gw-Hgww9 and at https://lnkd.in/gF8QAq4d, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
ZIFL – Volume 29, Issue 11
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
Read the full article and the full issue of ZIFL June 1, 2025 at https://lnkd.in/gTWZUnnF
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at ...
No Coverage if Home Vacant for More Than 60 Days
Failure to Respond To Counterclaim is an Admission of All Allegations
Post 5085
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gbWPjHub and at https://lnkd.in/gZ9ztA-P, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
In Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Rebecca Massey, Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-00124, United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division (May 22, 2025) Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company's (“Nationwide”) motion for Default Judgment against Plaintiff Rebecca Massey (“Plaintiff”) for failure to respond to a counterclaim and because the claim was excluded by the policy.
BACKGROUND
On February 26, 2022, Plaintiff's home was destroyed by a fire. At the time of this accident, Plaintiff had a home insurance policy with Nationwide. Plaintiff reported the fire loss to Nationwide, which refused to pay for the damages under the policy because the home had been vacant for more than 60 days.
Plaintiff filed suit ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...