When There are Two Damage Causing Events The Aggregate Limit Applies
Post 5078
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gkp6gpb7, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g5CmHxYg and at https://lnkd.in/gBStm3-x, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
In February 2024, in the matter of Ciara Kilburn, et al. v. Bill Simmon, et al., 20-CV-461, a jury returned a plaintiffs’ verdict against Defendant The Media Factory f/k/a Vermont Community Access Media, Inc. (“VCAM”) and one of its employees.
VCAM’s liability insurer, plaintiff Hanover Insurance Company (“Hanover”) sued VCAM and the plaintiffs in the underlying suit, seeking a declaration as to the scope of its coverage obligations with respect to that verdict.
In The Hanover Insurance Company v. The Media Factory f/k/a Vermont Community Access Media, Inc. et al, 2025 Vt Super 051401, No. 24-CV-03700, Superior Court of Vermont, Civil Division, Chittenden Unit (May 14, 2025) decided how many occurrences impinged on the Hanover policy.
BACKGROUND
In the underlying action, Ciara Kilburn and Brona Kilburn alleged that in 2012 Bill Simmon, then an employee of VCAM, used a hidden camera to record them changing in and out of costumes in a utility room and then posted those videos on the internet. The women subsequently sued Simmon and VCAM. The jury found that Simmon invaded Ciara and Brona’s privacy and that VCAM negligently supervised Simmon. It awarded Ciara and Brona $1.75 million each from Simmon in compensatory damages, another $1.75 million each from VCAM in compensatory damages, and another $2 million each from Simmon in punitive damages.
THE INSURANCE
Hanover Commercial Line Policy No. ZHV 8849689 07 (“the Policy”) insured VCAM. The CGL Coverage Form describes the two coverages at issue here: Coverage A insures against “Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability,” while Coverage B insures against “Personal and Advertising Injury Liability.”
Hanover issued no reservation of rights with respect to its obligations under the Policy. Rather it engaged counsel to represent VCAM and subsequently controlled that defense.
DISCUSSION
Hanover seeks a declaration that there can be no recovery under “Coverage B,” that there was only a single “occurrence” under Coverage A, and that VCAM’s coverage under the Policy is therefore limited to the $1 million per-occurrence limit.
There is no dispute that the most Hanover can owe under the Policy, whether under Coverage A, Coverage B, or any combination of the two, is the Policy’s aggregate limit of $2,000,000. A decision either that there were multiple occurrences or that Coverage B applies will leave the full aggregate limit exposed.
Because it did not reserve rights Hanover is now estopped from making the argument it should have reserved long ago.
The court concluded that Hanover’s aggregate limit, rather than the single occurrence limit, applies.
Focusing on the immediate cause-that is, the act that causes the damage-rather than the underlying tort-that is, the insured’s negligence-is consistent with the interpretation of other forms of insurance policies. An occurrence takes place at the time the party is actually damaged, rather than at some other moment when an allegedly wrongful act sets in motion the chain of events that eventually leads to the injury.
The Court found that sexual abuse does not fit neatly into the policies’ definition of continuous or repeated exposure to conditions. The jury verdict form further reflects that there were two “occurrences”: The jury found that Mr. Simmon invaded the Kilburns’ privacy by “taking the photos/videos” and also by “posting the photos/videos online/sharing them with a stranger.” The court rejected Hanover’s self-serving interpretation of the verdict form and instead concluded that there were two “occurrences” under the Policy.
The court denied Hanover’s motion and granted VCAM’s motion in part. The court declared that Hanover owes VCAM a duty of indemnification under Coverage A of the CGL coverage part of the Policy, up to its aggregate CGL coverage limit of $2,000,000, against the verdict obtained by the Kilburns in the underlying suit.
The determination that Hanover owes this duty under Coverage A moots any consideration of obligations owed under Coverage B.
VCAM and the Kilburns are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Hanover’s Complaint.
ZALMA OPINION
When an insurer fails to advise its insured that it intends to reserve its right to limit coverage to a single limit of liability it essentially waives the right to make that claim. In this case, since there were obviously, at least, two separate actions causing damage to the underlying case’s plaintiffs which were two “occurrences” as defined in the policy and impinged two separate policy limits and requires Hanover to pay its full aggregate limit.
(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 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 ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
