“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.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
