“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.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
