“Accident” Includes Continuous or Repeated Exposure to Conditions
Post 5176
“Occurrence” is an Accident & Includes Repeated Damage
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gkvBuWGK and at https://lnkd.in/g9zsY8hi and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In The Cobblestone Lofts Condominium v. Great American Insurance Company, Admiral Indemnity Company et al., Appeal No. 4265, 2025 NY Slip Op 04749, Index No. 653189/21, Case No. 2024-01860, Supreme Court of New York, First Department (August 21, 2025) the court resolved the issues.
FACTS
The Supreme Court of New York, First Department (trial court) dealt with a declaratory judgment action concerning an insurance coverage dispute. The plaintiff, a condominium association, was being sued for property damage and bodily injury caused by unintended water and moisture infiltration, resulting in toxic contamination of a condominium unit. The infiltration was allegedly caused by the plaintiff’s breaches of its contractual obligations under its bylaws and condominium declarations, as well as violations of statutory duties under the Multiple Dwelling Law and the Administrative Code of the City of New York.
PRIMARY ISSUE
The was asked to resolve whether the Great American Insurance Company was obligated to provide coverage for the plaintiff under its policy. The policy covers liability for bodily injury and property damage caused by an “occurrence,” which includes continuous or repeated exposure to harmful conditions.
Great American argued that the alleged damages were caused by the plaintiff’s breaches of its bylaws and condominium declarations, and not by an accident. However, the term “occurrence” in the policy includes continuous exposure to harmful conditions caused by breaches of contract or statutory violations.
THE ORDER
The Supreme Court, New York County (Louis L. Nock, J.), order granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its second cause of action declaring that defendant Great American Insurance Company was obligated to provide coverage for plaintiff.
Great American issued a “direct, definitive notice” to plaintiff disclaiming coverage. By letter dated September 17, 2018, Great American notified plaintiff that its policy does not afford coverage because:
1. a breach of contract is not an accident and, therefore, does not constitute an “occurrence” under the Primary Policy or Umbrella Policy and
2. because the Primary Policy excludes coverage for breach of contract.
Contrary to Great American’s argument, the denial letter is a repudiation of plaintiff’s rights. Great American will be obligated to indemnify plaintiff for any liability imposed upon it in the underlying action that is in excess of the policy issued by Admiral Indemnity Company the primary insurer to Great American’s umbrella policy.
The Great American policy covers liability for bodily injury and property damage “that takes place during the Policy Period and is caused by an ‘occurrence’ happening anywhere…” The term “occurrence” is defined, in relevant part, to mean “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” Under this definition, the term “occurrence” includes within its scope continuous exposure to a harmful condition alleged, as in the underlying action, to have been caused by the insured’s breaches of contract or violations of statutory or regulatory duties.
Great American argued that the alleged “bodily injury” and “property damage” were caused by plaintiff’s breaches of its bylaws and condominium declarations, and not by an accident. The policy defines “accident” to include “continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” which is exactly what was alleged in the underlying action.
The court declared that Great American is obligated to indemnify the plaintiff for any liability imposed in the underlying action that exceeds the policy issued by Admiral Indemnity Company.
ZALMA OPINION
Fortuity is a required element of every liability insurance policy determined by the definition of “occurrence” in the policy. Since the cause of damage was found by the trial court to be a result of continuous or repeated exposure to harmful conditions, it concluded the loss was due to a fortuitous “occurrence” and Great American must pay damages that could be found against the Plaintiff Condominium.
(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, ...
