PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for Occurrence

Occurrence

How General is “General Aggregate?”

April 1, 2016 by Daniel G. Enriquez

“It’s a big enough umbrella, but it’s always me that ends up getting wet.”  - Sting (1981) “Here’s a second umbrella” – Montana Supreme Court (2016) Although the terms are often used interchangeably, there are several key differences between umbrella and excess coverage. One such distinction is that an umbrella policy can apply to multiple underlying policies. This makes it essential to clearly delineate and define the policy’s aggregate limit of liability— the maximum ... Keep Reading »

After Pit Bull Case, Questions Dog New York’s “Unfortunate Event” Test

December 30, 2015 by Robert W. DiUbaldo and Nora Valenza-Frost

Where an insurance policy contains a “per occurrence” limit on coverage, New York courts apply what they call the “unfortunate event” test to determine how many “occurrences” are involved in a given claim or set of claims.  The test does not apply at all, however, where the policy language indicates “an intent to aggregate separate incidents into a single occurrence.”  As this blog recently discussed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in September ... Keep Reading »

No Contractor Is An Island: Florida Court Narrowly Applies “Your Work” Exclusion

December 11, 2015 by John A. Camp and Robert D. Helfand

Picture of a Jumping Contractor

When an insurer issues a Commercial General Liability policy to a contractor, the policy typically excludes coverage for the cost of repairing or replacing the contractor's own defective work, but covers the cost of repairing damage to other parts of the property which the defective component might cause. As this blog has explained, the "your work" exclusion serves to distinguish a liability policy from "a performance bond or warranty of a contractor's product." But ... Keep Reading »

As TCPA Class Actions Soar, Issues Emerge in TCPA Coverage for Claims

December 7, 2015 by Elizabeth M. Bohn and John C. Pitblado

Picture of Postcard for Candlestick Telephones

Both the number of cases under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the types of practices that those cases challenge have mushroomed within the last several years. Yet a dedicated form of insurance against TCPA claims has not yet developed. Instead, businesses seeking defense and indemnification of TCPA suits have resorted to traditional policy provisions dealing with property damage, personal and advertising injury, and (more recently) the language of ... Keep Reading »

Second Circuit’s Policy Language Interpretation Leaves Insurer Down in the Dumps

November 20, 2015 by Carlton Fields

So this dump truck can’t make it through an overpass on I-90; the crash knocks the dump box off the truck and into the road. Five minutes later (or 30 seconds, if you believe some people), along comes Mr. Itzkowitz, with his wife and five children, and plows right into the dump box. Then, after another few seconds (or 20 minutes, according to some people), ka-pow: Mr. Compton’s car, with another six passengers, does the same thing. What are you gonna do? In National ... Keep Reading »

Off Schedule: Texas Supreme Court Rules That Ambiguity Produces Blanket Coverage

July 9, 2015 by Meredith Whigham Caiafa

1942 Advertisement by the War Production Board

Owners of multiple commercial properties can significantly reduce their insurance premiums by purchasing a scheduled policy, under which each item of covered property is separately reported (or "scheduled"), and the coverage limit for any one item is determined independently of damage to any other item.  The alternative is a blanket policy, which applies a single coverage limit to the aggregate losses of all the covered properties.  Recently, in RSUI Indem. Co. v. The ... Keep Reading »

Looking Backward: West Virginia Retroactively Imposes Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

June 25, 2015 by Zachary D. Ludens

Car Rear-view Mirror

A notorious moving target in the field of coverage litigation is an insurer's responsibility under a commercial general liability policy for the policyholder's faulty workmanship.  The key question is usually whether the defect in workmanship is an "occurrence" within the meaning of a policy; the answer can depend on which court you ask or how those courts deal with other policy terms. In 2013, West Virginia's highest court overruled its own precedents to hold that CGL ... Keep Reading »

Wait A Minute, Mr. Postman: Tenth Circuit Applies Statutory-Violation Exclusion To Junk Fax Claims That Try To Skirt The TCPA

May 22, 2015 by Jacob R. Hathorn and Robert D. Helfand

Picture of a Postman Statue

Enacted in 1991, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227  (TCPA), inaugurated the era of "junk fax" class actions, in which recipients of mass fax advertisements may pursue statutory damages of $500 per class member. Insurers responded by adding terms to liability policies that expressly exclude coverage for claims under the TCPA. But the dialectic of coverage litigation is ineluctable, and plaintiffs began asserting, in effect, that the TCPA was ... Keep Reading »

Seeing the Finish Line: Courts Increasingly Exempt Claims-Made Policies from the Notice Prejudice Rule

May 11, 2015 by Whitney Fore

Picture of U.S. Navy Race

In a majority of jurisdictions, the "notice-prejudice rule" provides that an insurer may not deny a claim on grounds of late notice without demonstrating prejudice. The rule is statutory in some states and judicially crafted in others.  Most courts, however, also hold that the rule does not apply to late notice under a claims-made-and-reported policy, as opposed to an occurrence policy.  In 2015, several cases have solidified this trend, and some of them actually extend ... Keep Reading »

No Manifestation Destiny: The Seventh Circuit Declines to Set a Standard Trigger Rule for First-Party Property Policies

February 6, 2015 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

Picture of Roy Rogers and Trigger

When I ... feel my finger on your trigger, I know no one can do me no harm." - John Lennon Property damage can be sudden and dramatic, but it can also be subtle and insidious, and that can make it hard to identify the moment when properly coverage is implicated.  As a result, courts have recognized several different "triggers," depending on the circumstances of the loss and the type of coverage involved.  In November 2014, in Strauss v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Next Page »
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Connecticut Federal Court Construes Ambiguous Policy Exclusion in Favor of Coverage, but Rejects Bad Faith Claim
  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing