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
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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, ...
