Ms. Hollis sued the company hired to perform the show and its president and employee, several Chinese fireworks manufacturers, Vienna municipal employees, and firefighters.

Prior to trial, Ms. Hollis settled her claim against the employee of the company hired to perform the fireworks show. A jury ultimately awarded Ms. Hollis a verdict of $4,750,000 after finding that the fireworks company, Schaefer Pyrotechnics, Inc., and its president had been negligent.

At the time of the fireworks incident, Lexington Insurance Company insured Schaefer through a per-occurrence commercial general liability insurance policy covering up to $1 million per occurrence and $2 million in the aggregate.

The Hollises filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether there had been a single occurrence or multiple occurrences under the Lexington policy. They moved for summary judgment, arguing that their complaint alleged 19 occurrences, corresponding with the number of duties that Schaefer, its president, and employee allegedly had breached.

How did the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia rule?

The Answer

The district court, applying Pennsylvania law, agreed with Lexington that the Hollises' injuries had arisen from one occurrence: the explosion of the firework shell within the crowd.

Learn more: One Exploded Firework and 19 Allegedly Wrongful Acts. But One Occurrence, Virginia Court Rules.

* * *

2. The Multi-Dog, Multi-Victim Attack Case

Jean and Joanne Verlus were walking on the street near Wilson, Beverly, and Grace Taylor's home in White Plains, New York.

At some point during the Verluses' walk, the Taylors' two American Pit Bull Terriers, Doom and Diva, started running toward them. According to the Verluses, both dogs approached them from the same direction, the right side of the street, nearest to Joanne Verlus.

They said that the darker colored dog, Doom, jumped towards Jean Verlus' face, while the lighter colored dog, Diva, attacked Joanne Verlus.

The Verluses said that they ran in opposite directions in an attempt to escape the dogs.

Diva bit Joanne Verlus on her buttocks and her middle finger. She said that she fell to her knees and crawled to higher ground – what she described as a cement block – out of Diva's reach.

Diva barked at Joanne Verlus for a short period of time and then left to join Doom's attack on Jean Verlus. The entire attack on Joanne Verlus lasted less than one minute.

Meanwhile, Doom was attacking Jean Verlus. Diva joined the attack, biting Jean Verlus' groin area and feet. The entire attack on Jean Verlus lasted three or four minutes.

The Verluses sued the Taylors for their injuries in a New York trial court. The action resulted in a judgment in favor of the Verluses in the amount of $1,076,494.72.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the Taylors' insurance carrier, paid the Verluses $314,619.67 inclusive of interest, purportedly in accordance with the liability provisions of the Taylors' insurance policy. Liberty argued that the attack had constituted only one “occurrence” under the Taylors' policy and that payment for each occurrence was capped at $300,000.

The Verluses sued Liberty, arguing that the attack by the Taylors' dogs constituted three separate “occurrences” – the first attack on Jean Verlus by Doom; the second attack on Joanne Verlus by Diva; and the third attack on Jean Verlus by Diva – within the meaning of the Taylors' policy, requiring payment of $900,000 to the Verluses.

How did the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rule?

The Answer

The district court ruled that the multi-dog attacks constituted one occurrence. It found that the “attack” by the Taylors' dogs constituted “continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The district court reasoned that the attack had occurred while the Verluses were walking within arms-length of each other and had lasted for a very short period of time. The district court said that although the Verluses had not been exposed to the exact same conditions, they had been exposed to the same general conditions – a simultaneous attack by two dogs – that the policy made clear was to be “treated as one occurrence for liability purposes.”

Learn more: Multi-Dog, Multi-Victim Attack Was a Single Occurrence, New York District Court Rules in Case of First Impression 

* * * 

3. The One Dog, Two Bites, Two People Case

Crystal Maddox asserted that, together with her two sons, Logan and Ivan, she lived with her boyfriend, Robert Bullard, and his dogs, Dixie and Sugar, in Mr. Bullard's home and that one day she heard Ivan screaming and found Dixie biting him. She said that she and Mr. Bullard tried to get Dixie to release her grip on Ivan's face and that, after Dixie did so, she bit Ms. Maddox on her face.

Ms. Maddox sued Mr. Bullard and his homeowner's insurance company, Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company.

The trial court found that the dog bite injuries were subject to the one occurrence limit in Mr. Bullard's policy, and Ms. Maddox appealed.

How did the Florida appellate court rule?

The Answer

The appeals court reversed the trial court's decision and ruled that there had been two occurrences.

It explained that, under the “cause” theory, the immediate injury-producing acts were the dog bites, and the dog bite that inflicted the injuries to Ms. Maddox was not the same dog bite that inflicted the injuries to Ivan.

Learn more: One Dog, Two Bites, Two People, and Two Separate Occurrences, Florida Appeals Court Rules

* * *

4. The Gunshot Case

Fifteen-year-old Kevin Michaud fired a single shot from a revolver belonging to his parents, killing one friend and seriously wounding another. The parents of the two victims sued him, his parents, and their homeowner's insurance company, United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”).

The victims' parents contended that there had been multiple occurrences because there had been multiple people injured. 

How did the Alaska Supreme Court rule?

The Answer

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the single gunshot was one occurrence notwithstanding the number of people who had been injured.

Learn more: Single Gunshot Was One Occurrence Notwithstanding Number of People Injured, Alaska Supreme Court Holds

* * *

5. The Surgical Instruments Case

In 2004, Duke University Health System, Inc., hired Automatic Elevator Company to renovate two elevators in a hospital's parking deck. After Automatic Elevator completed its work, it placed barrels full of used hydraulic fluid in its designated storage area at the hospital. Duke employees saw the barrels, mistakenly thought they contained surgical detergents and lubricants, and ultimately used the hydraulic fluid to wash hundreds of surgical instruments. Approximately 127 patients who may have come into contact with the tainted instruments sued Duke, which settled the claims for over $6 million. Duke then sued Automatic Elevator.

Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company of America, which had issued two policies to Automatic Elevator, argued that the hydraulic fluid mistake constituted one “occurrence,” obligating it to pay $1 million under the policies, which it had already paid to settle the surgical patients' claims against Automatic Elevator.

Duke countered that each instance of a waste-laden medical instrument being used to operate on an unsuspecting patient gave rise to a separate “occurrence.”

A federal district court agreed with the insurer, and the coverage dispute reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

How did the circuit court rule?

The Answer

The Fourth Circuit decided that there was one occurrence.

It explained that the only action that Automatic Elevator – the insured – had taken in this case was placing the barrels of hydraulic fluid in its designated storage area at the hospital's parking deck. The circuit court held that Automatic Elevator's alleged negligence in leaving the barrels in its storage area constituted a single occurrence.

Learn more: Using 'Cause Test,' Circuit Finds One Occurrence Where Hundreds of Surgical Instruments Were Washed with Hydraulic Fluid