Occam’s Razor Exclusion for Work Performed by Insured Defeats Claim for Construction Defects Post 4935 Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gT_NsMHv, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gqkPHYbp and at https://lnkd.in/gEEXkUe3, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. The question presented to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals was whether a contractor’s CGL insurance policy covers general damage to a non-defective part of the contractor’s project resulting from a subcontractor’s defective work on a different part of that project. APPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR The analysis technique that proposes that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Applying Massachusetts law, the district court concluded that Admiral had no duty to defend Tocci in Admiral Insurance Company, Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, Great American Assurance Company v. Tocci Building Corporation, Tocci Residential LLC, John L. Tocci, Sr., No. 22-1462, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (November 8, 2024) and Tocci appealed. From 2013 to 2016, Tocci was the construction manager for an apartment project owned by Toll JM EB Residential Urban Renewal LLC (“Toll”). There were several work quality issues and delays on the project, and Toll eventually terminated Tocci in March 2016 for alleged mismanagement of the project. Toll sued with allegations regarding instances of defective work leading to property damage. The allegations included defective work by Tocci’s subcontractors resulting in various instances of property damage to non-defective work on the project, including (1) damage to sheetrock resulting from faulty roof work; (2) mold formation resulting from inadequate sheathing and water getting into the building; and (3) damage to a concrete slab, wood framing, and underground pipes resulting from soil settlement due to improper backfill and soil compaction. DUTY TO DEFEND Tocci sought defense and indemnity coverage under the Admiral insurance policies. Admiral denied coverage. The district court granted Admiral’s motion on duty to defend because the damage alleged in Toll’s complaint did not qualify as “property damage” as defined in the policy because the allegations consisted entirely of damage at Tocci’s own project. ANALYSIS The First Circuit considered three steps to the coverage analysis: (1) Do the damages alleged in the action fall within the scope of coverage?; (2) if so, do the exclusions to coverage apply?; and (3) if so, do any exceptions to the exclusions apply? The First Circuit noted that there is a sharp split of authority on whether damage to non-defective work resulting from a subcontractor’s defective work constitutes “property damage” or is caused by an “occurrence.” The First Circuit decided to avoid the issues of what constitutes “property damage” by focusing on the exclusions which were sufficient to resolve the complete dispute. THE HOLDING There are two “Damage to Property” exclusions that provide that there is no coverage for “property damage” to: that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of those operations; or that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because “your work” was incorrectly performed on it. The First Circuit, applying Occam’s Razor, focused its analysis on the exclusion it concluded covers the allegations in the Toll complaint. Since the complaint alleges damage resulting from Tocci’s “incorrectly performed” work on the entire project “[t]hat particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘[Tocci’s] work’ was incorrectly performed on it” refers to the entirety of the project where Tocci was the general contractor charged with supervising and managing the project as a whole. Therefore, the First Circuit concluded that Admiral met its burden of establishing that the Toll action only alleges damage falling within the exclusion and that there was no exception to that exclusion that applied. ZALMA OPINION This is a case of a court applying Occam’s Razor, by picking an easy and obvious solution – the application of an exclusion – and avoiding the problem of different court rulings on coverage about “property damage” and “occurence.” Since the exclusion clearly applied there was no duty to defend. (c) 2024 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 Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; 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 Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy

Declaring a Policy Void When a Policy Is Void For Subscribers to Excellence in Claims Handling You can Subscribe for only $5 a month to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe A small portion of what was provided to subscribers. In almost every policy of insurance, there is a clause declaring the policy void if the insured misrepresents or conceals material facts or commits fraud. For example: We do not pay for bodily injury or property damage which is expected by, directed by, or intended by an insured. This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury that arises out of the use of reasonable force to protect people or property. (AAIS Form BP-200, (c) 1987 AAIS). or: This Coverage Form is void in any case of fraud by you at any time as it relates to this Coverage Form. It is also void if you or any other “insured,” at any time, intentionally conceal or misrepresent a material fact concerning: a. This Coverage Form; b. The covered “auto”; c. Your interest in the covered “auto”; or d. A claim under this Coverage Form. (Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 01 87). The policy wording requires that the insurer prove, not only that the insured misrepresented or concealed a material fact but must also prove that the insured did so with the intent to deceive. Absent the rare confession it is often difficult to prove intentional deceit. The insured will usually claim that he or she was mistaken and had no intent to deceive. In more than 50 years of investigation of fraudulent insurance claims I only once received from an insured an under oath statement that the insured intentionally deceived the insurer and then, not in person, but by correcting false testimony in the transcript of an examination under oath. If fraud or mutual mistake is an issue, insurers and insureds doing business in Oklahoma must resort to courts of general jurisdiction for a determination of contractual rights.[1] In Oklahoma, the Workers’ Compensation court does not have the right to rescind or declare a policy of Workers’ Compensation insurance void. However, where there is a misrepresentation with intent to deceive and the putative insured recognized the materiality of the misrepresentation the insurance policy is void from its inception.[2] In Florida, Florida Statutes (2006), state in pertinent part: any insurance fraud shall void all coverage arising from the claim related to such fraud under the personal injury protection coverage of the insured person who committed the fraud. In harmony with this statutory provision, the fraud provision in an insurance policy set forth: “any insurance fraud shall void all personal injury protection coverage arising from the claim with respect to the insured who committed the fraud” is appropriate and enforceable. [Bosem v. Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co., 35 So.3d 944 (Fla. App., 2010)]

https://www.thecollegefix.com/white-students-sue-education-dept-over-race-based-exclusion-in-federally-funded-phd-scholarship-program/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=white-students-sue-education-dept-over-race-based-exclusion-in-federally-funded-phd-scholarship-program

The European Commission has postponed the presentation of its new administration due to concerns raised by the Socialist and Democrats (S&D) group. These issues center on the lack of gender balance in the proposed lineup, the exclusion of certain key socialist figures agaist violent potential inclusion of far-right politicians in significant positions in european countrys. The S&D, which is the second-largest bloc in the European Parliament, warned that their support for the new administration is at risk if these concerns are not addressed. The S&D emphasized the importance of maintaining candidat process open and ensuring that social rights are a top priority in the commission's policies. They also criticized the possibility of a far-right representative gaining with many Executive positions. This dispute puts the support of the socialist group in question to the President of European Community that need to prepares and finalize the Commission's makeup​.

I received this moments ago via email: Fakebook Discrimination Via Editing And Exclusion: Reports recently in Canada are now being vetted by Facebook when it comes to the incompetence of the Federal Government and the Trudeau regime. In particular the huge slowdown in processing international student applications for visas to various schools in Canada is bad enough for Canada's reputation but when Facebook jumps in and will not allow Canadian citizens to comment on the issue you know that someone somewhere is either being pressured or being paid off to hide bias, discrimination and/or incompetence. Trudeau and crew have been energetically attempting to secure only positive postings on the internet about their methods and success or failures on the international scene. Included in their manipulations is the recent reduction of international student visas by the deliberate slow down of the processing of applications. What was in recent times an 8 to 10 week timeframe is now many months long in the offing and Canada is looking pretty sad in the international education world. The land of the maple leaf has long been a preferred destination for international students both for the quality of education and the safety of its cities. Both stalwart measures of Canada's reputation internationally are taking a beating. Trudeau has failed Canada on many fronts but causing internationals to find the process of applying for admission to schools public and private arduous by virtue of the increasingly long wait times to be processed is unforgiveable. Worse yet is the government attempting to hide its massive failure and preventing the reporting of its failure to the public at large. Bad move Justin, at least Canada itself doesn't need to take the blame when it is you that sucks, not Canada. - Dr. Jim Garrow - "Just plain Jim" https://moodyaudio.com/person/jim-garrow

https://medforth.biz/new-french-popular-front-battles-on-amid-infighting-exclusions/

BREAKING: Kash Patel calls for Jack Smith to be held in contempt and JAILED: "Judge Cannon should be implementing actual contempt proceedings against Jack Smith and the Department of Justice for lying to a federal judge and withholding evidence of exclusion and innocence from Donald Trump.. Maybe we can put Jack Smith in prison."

RT - Scientists discover Chernobyl ‘super worms’: https://www.rt.com/news/593982-chernobyl-worms-radiation-study/ #OscheiusTipulae #Nematode #Extremophile #ChernobylExclusionZone #Chernobyl #Radiation #DNADamage #Genetics #Biology

People are noticing new exclusions in their Life and Home Insurance Policies… to exclude coverage for war, sickness due to war, insurrection, etc… Anyone notice anything like this? https://rumble.com/v49qrfi-are-you-seeing-any-changes-in-your-home-insurance-polices.html