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 ...
Claims of Res Judicata and Procedural Default Defeats Habeas
Post 5543
Posted on November 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
In Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz v. Commissioner Of Correction, No. CV 26-5002432-S, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Habeas Docket (October 29, 2026) Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz submitted 114 claims for in-home, face-to-face services purportedly provided to thirty program participants during four one-week periods. The department paid Neurostrategies, Inc., $13,650.
FACTS
The defendant waived his right to a jury trial and elected a trial to the court, D'Addabbo, J. Trial occurred over the course of eight days in August, 2022. The state presented testimony from ten witnesses and introduced thirty-three exhibits into ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
