Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
March 12, 2025
CGL Policy not a Course of Construction Policy

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

00:09:52
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
August 27, 2026
Offer Made and Accepted Creates Enforceable Contract

Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim

Post 5434

Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute

In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange,  The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.

Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...

00:08:28
August 26, 2026
Offer Made and Accepted Creates Enforceable Contract

Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim

Post 5434

Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute

In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange,  The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.

Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...

00:08:28
July 22, 2026
The Real Cost of Fraud

The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407

Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.

After ...

00:12:33
4 hours ago
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim

Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged

Post 5488

Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma

ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html

In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.

South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...

post photo preview
4 hours ago

Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim

Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged

Post 5488

ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html

In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.

South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.

After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.

LAW

Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...

September 10, 2026
Failure to Plead a Facially Plausible Claim Requires Dismissal

Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith

Post 5487

Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.

Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals