Damage Before Project is Complete Excluded by CGL
Post 5013
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gutmTTj3, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gsuFz3JM and at https://lnkd.in/g2m9myqZ, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Consolidated appeals required the Eleventh Circuit to (1) decide whether an insured has standing to seek reformation before it makes a claim on the portion of the policy that it wants reformed, (2) construe an exclusion in a commercial general liability policy under Florida law, and (3) determine whether the district court properly denied the insured’s motion for attorney’s fees.
In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation v. Kaufman Lynn Construction, Inc., United Glass Systems Corp. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation v. Kaufman Lynn Construction, Inc., Nos. 23-12715, 23-12835, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (March 5, 2025)
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6qh5hm-cgl-policy-not-a-course-of-construction-policy.html and at https://youtu.be/Y_peIPKxpiw
FACTS
The case involves JM Family Enterprises hiring Kaufman to build a new corporate campus in South Florida. Kaufman obtained a commercial general liability policy from Liberty Surplus Insurance to insure itself and its subcontractors. After Tropical Storm Eta caused significant water damage to the completed buildings, Kaufman sought indemnification from Liberty, which was denied based on the policy’s Course of Construction Exclusion (COCE). Liberty then filed a declaratory judgment action, and Kaufman counterclaimed for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and reformation of the insurance policy due to mutual mistake.
JM Family Enterprises hired Kaufman to build its new corporate campus in South Florida. The campus was to consist of three office buildings, a training and conference center, a sports and recreation building, a dining hall, an amphitheater, a central energy plant, a parking garage, and various landscaping and water features. To insure itself and its subcontractors, Kaufman obtained a commercial general liability policy from Liberty Surplus Insurance.
The district court granted Liberty’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the COCE excluded coverage until the entire project was completed. The court also dismissed Kaufman’s reformation counterclaim for lack of standing. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the reformation counterclaim, affirming that Kaufman had Article III standing to seek reformation. However, the court affirmed the district court’s ruling that the COCE precluded coverage for the water damage and denied Liberty’s motion for attorney’s fees.
ANALYSIS
The Course of Construction Exclusion (COCE) in the insurance policy issued by Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation to Kaufman Lynn Construction, Inc. was significant because it determines the scope of coverage during the construction phase of a project. The COCE states that the insurance does not apply to any property damage at or to any project insured under the policy during the course of construction until the project is completed.
A court of equity has the power to reform a written instrument where, due to a mutual mistake, the instrument as drawn does not accurately express the true intention or agreement of the parties to the instrument. A mistake is mutual when the parties agree to one thing and then, due to either a scrivener’s error or inadvertence, express something different in the written instrument. Reformation can correct a mutual mistake in the description of the premises or articles insured due to the fact that in the case of a mere mutual mistake in the description of the subject matter equity will correct it to conform to the intention of the parties
Florida law subjects reformation claims to a five-year statute of limitations. An insured in Florida may need to bring a reformation claim soon after the issuance of the policy containing the mistake or risk forever losing the ability to fix the error.
The policy issued by Liberty to Kaufman was a general commercial liability policy and not a builder’s risk policy. The critical language in the COCE is the phrase “until the project is completed,” but the terms “project” and “completed” are not separately defined in the policy.
The language “until the project is completed” means that the COCE precludes coverage until the entire project is finished. It would have been better, of course, for Liberty to draft the COCE to expressly state that there is no coverage unless and until the “entire project” is completed. But Liberty’s failure to adhere to the standards of impeccable draftsmanship here does not result in ambiguity. The mere fact that a provision in an insurance policy could be more clearly drafted does not necessarily mean that the provision is otherwise inconsistent, uncertain or ambiguous.
The Eleventh Circuit concluded that Kaufman has standing to seek reformation of the policy. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the reformation counterclaim and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
With respect to the parties’ dispute about the policy the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the COCE precludes coverage for the water damage to the buildings caused by Tropical Storm Eta.
ZALMA OPINION
A course of construction policy is designed to protect the owner and contractors for fortuitous losses in the course of construction. A commercial general liability policy is not intended to, and has no wording similar language to, a course of construction policy. The claims were for damage to the property that would be the subject of a course of construction policy but not a Commercial General Liability policy, especially one with a COCE.
(c) 2025 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/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Another Anniversary for Barry Zalma, Inc
Posted on October 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
From October 1, 1979 – 2026
Post 4854
Read the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ZIFL-10-01-2026.pdf Forty seven years ago today I left the world of the employed and became an entrepreneur by opening my own law firm. The law practice was incorporated shortly thereafter as Barry Zalma, Inc.
When I opened for business on October 1, 1979, I had no clients and no certainty that I would have any in the future. I had borrowed money from the bank to carry me through the first six months and was concerned about my ability to pay the loan with my third child about to be born.
Much to my surprise and pleasure, on October 1, 1979, at 8:10 a.m., the best claims handler in the London market, Alan Warboys, called from London and provided me with my first case as an independent lawyer to represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. He, and the Lloyd’s Underwriters he represented, showed faith in me as a lawyer and insurance expert. Alan is now, although ...
Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment
Post 4854
Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.
Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW
Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...
Accused of 17 Counts Of Fraud Attempts to Keep Out Evidence of Crimes
Post 4853
Posted on September 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Refuses to Grant Most Motions in Limine
In United States Of America v. Seth Allen Aikens, II, Criminal No. 22-119, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania (September 23, 2026) Defendant Seth Allen Aikens II faces thirty federal counts. The indictment alleges that, from about June 2016 through March 2020, Aikens solicited start-up businesses seeking websites, applications, hosting, payment processing, and related services. The Government estimated aggregate losses of approximately $1.3 million involving about eight charged customers.
The Government also sought to introduce evidence involving three uncharged persons. Robert Polonsky allegedly paid about $10,000 for web development, hosting, and advertising services but did not receive the promised core deliverables. Brandon Canwright allegedly paid approximately $1,877 for a website and related services that were not delivered and received no ...