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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
