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
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
