In a decision by Judge Sutton, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that a falling tree causing one injury and two deaths was the result of a single occurrence. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Housing Auth. of Somerset, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15199 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2017).
A large tree fell on cousins Kaitlyn Griffin and Joshua Thacker. Kaitlyn died within minutes. She was pregnant at the time. Doctors delivered her baby, but the baby died shortly thereafter. Joshua survived but suffered serious injury. In December 2013, a state court jury found the Housing Authority liable for the accident and awarded $3.7 million in damages.
The Authority belonged to the Kentucky Housing Authorities Self-Insurance Fund. The Fund's policy with Evanston Insurance came with a series of caps and conditions.Through mediation in the state court case, Evanston agreed to pay the victims and families the policy limits in return for the dismissal and release of the state court action against the Housing Authority.
Evanston filed a complaint against the Housing Authority and individual defendants. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment limiting its liability under the Fund's policy to $1 million. The individual defendants claimed that the coverage cap was between $2 and $4 million. The district court found for Evanston.
On appeal, Judge Sutton noted that the Evanston policy provided a maximum of $1 million of coverage per occurrence, with an aggregate limit of $ 2 million should there be more than one occurrence. It was commonly thought that when one tree falls at one time, this is one occurrence and one accident. Black's Law Dictionary defined an "occurrence" as an "accident, event or continuing condition that results in a personal injury or property damage that is neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of an insured party." The dictionary definitions looked to the number of causes, not the number of effects. Here, there was one unfortunate cause (the fallen tree), and three tragic effects (two deaths and one serious injury).
Kentucky case law was consistent with these definitions. "Under the prevailing cause approach, the number of occurrences is determined by whether there is but one proximate, uninterrupted and continuing cause which resulted in all of the injuries and damages." Davis v. Kentucky Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., 495 S.W. 3d 159, 161 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016). A single tree, in a sudden moment, caused all of the injuries that gave rise to the Housing Authority's liability. Just one occurrence, the untimely fall of the tree, triggered liability under the Fund's policy, and the policy capped Evanston's liability at $1 million per occurrence. Not just Kentucky used this approach; so did a majority of other jurisdictions.
Consequently, the district court was affirmed.