The first case: Arnett v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2010 WL 2821981 *3 (M.D. Fla. July 16, 2010), holding that "not a known loss" was part of the Insured's Burden of Proof to prove Coverage in the first place, and the Insured did not prove it, under this policy language:
The Federal Court called the following provision in this case a “known loss clause”:
1. Insuring Agreement
[…]
b. This insurance applies to “bodily injury” and “property damage” only if:
[…]
(3) Prior to the policy period, no insured listed under Paragraph 1. of Section II-Who Is An Insured and no “employee” authorized by you to give or retrieve notice of an “occurrence” or claim, knew that the “bodily injury” or “property damage” had occurred, in whole or in part. If such a listed insured or authorized “employee” knew, prior to the policy period, that the “bodily injury” or “property damage” occurred, then any continuation, change or resumption of such “bodily injury” or “property damage” during or after the policy period will be deemed to have been known prior to the policy period.
The second case: Westport Ins. Co. v. Law Offices of Gerald J. Lindor, P.A., 2009 WL 722254 *3-*4 (S.D. Fla. March 18, 2009), holding that the following language was an Exclusion and the Insurer bore the Burden of Proof that it applied, a burden which the Court held that the Insurance Company met in this case:
any claim based upon, arising out of, attributable to, or directly or indirectly resulting from … any wrongful act occurring prior to the effective date of [the Insurance policy] … if the Insured at the effective [sic] of [the Insurance policy] knew or could have reasonably foreseen that such wrongful act might be expected to be the basis of a claim ....
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments