We found a match
Your institution may have rights to this item. Sign in to continue.
- Title
The Timeless Question of "How Many Occurrences?".
- Authors
Camerlengo, Kathryn
- Abstract
For example, the Terminal Access Card coverage defined "occurrence" as "an unauthorized use or series of unauthorized uses involving one or more persons."20 The district court found that "absent contrary language in the policy, each act of fuel theft was a discrete occurrence for insurance purposes." For purposes of applying the deductible, the policy defined one occurrence as "dishonest or fraudulent acts of such employee during the policy period."63 The court of appeals found that the continued dishonesty of one employee was the cause of Business Interiors' loss. 14 In distinguishing EOTT and Patterson, the AIMS court of appeals explained that both EOTT and Patterson involved a string of thefts that occurred without interruption or involvement by the insured. In Koikos, the court concluded that consistent with the cause theory, in the absence of clear language to the contrary, "occurrence" is defined by the immediate injury-producing act.23 Applying that standard, the court viewed each of the alleged fuel thefts by drivers from different fuel dispensers on different days over the course of a year as the "immediate injury-producing acts."24 Each alleged fuel theft was an act separate and distinct in time and space.
- Subjects
INSURANCE companies; GOVERNMENT policy; CRIMINAL procedure; DISMISSAL &; nonsuit; PRACTICE of law; ELECTRONIC funds transfers; COMPUTER fraud
- Publication
Brief, 2021, Vol 50, Issue 3, p50
- ISSN
0273-0995
- Publication type
Article