“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.
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...
