National Liability & Fire Insurance Co. v. Itzkowitz, 624 F. App'x 758

National Liability & Fire insured a dump truck involved in a sequence of incidents on I-90: the truck’s dump box struck an overpass and fell into the roadway; subsequently the Itzkowitz vehicle hit the detached dump box; later the Compton-Hershkowitz vehicle also hit the same dump box.
Timing between events is disputed but at minimum: ~30 seconds between first and second collisions, and a few seconds between second and third.
National sought to treat the events as one (or at most two) "accident(s)" under the policy’s single-occurrence limits; defendants contended there were three separate accidents.
The policy defined an "accident" to include "continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same conditions" and capped recovery per "accident."
The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding three separate accidents; National appealed to the Second Circuit.
The Second Circuit applied New York law and the "unfortunate event" test to determine whether the incidents aggregate into a single occurrence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the series of events constitute one "accident" under the policy	Events constitute a single accident (or at most two) and thus a single limit applies	Each collision is a separate accident and separate limits apply	Three separate accidents; judgment for defendants affirmed
Whether policy language about "continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same conditions" precludes the unfortunate-event test	Language shows intent to aggregate incidents into one occurrence	Language does not show intent; apply unfortunate-event test	Court applies unfortunate-event test; language insufficient to force aggregation
Role of temporal proximity in aggregation	Short intervals (seconds) support aggregation into one occurrence	Timing did not cause subsequent collisions; short gaps insufficient	Temporal proximity alone insufficient; no evidence timing caused later collisions
Role of spatial proximity and causal continuum	Spatial proximity (same spot for 2nd/3rd collisions) and common origin support aggregation	Even where proximate, causal chains were broken so incidents are distinct	Spatial proximity of 2nd/3rd not dispositive; causal chains were separate — all three are distinct accidents

Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Ment Bros. Iron Works Co. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 702 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2012) (contract interpretation governed de novo)
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 991 N.E.2d 666 (N.Y. 2013) (discussion of "unfortunate event" test and aggregation)
Appalachian Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 863 N.E.2d 994 (N.Y. 2007) (two-part unfortunate-event test: identify operative incident; assess temporal/spatial/causal continuity)
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Wesolowski, 305 N.E.2d 907 (N.Y. 1973) (near-instant chain-reaction collisions treated as a single occurrence)
Arthur A. Johnson Corp. v. Indem. Ins. Co., 164 N.E.2d 704 (N.Y. 1959) (temporal gaps can defeat aggregation)
Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Asbestos Claims Mgmt. Corp., 73 F.3d 1178 (2d Cir. 1995) (similar policy language; unfortunate-event test applied)
City of Johnstown v. Bankers Standard Ins. Co., 877 F.2d 1146 (2d Cir. 1989) (applying state law to federal cases)