The event theory holds that time and space parameters are used to determine the number of occurrences. If the injuries happen close together, then there is one occurrence. For example, 21 people get sick all at the same time from eating together at the same banquet; this is considered one occurrence under the event theory. On the other hand, if the injuries happen over a period of time and in separate occasions, then the support for one occurrence gets rather weak (even if the source of the injuries is the same).

The effect theory looks at the number of injuries claimed and treats each one as a separate occurrence. If this were the theory applied by the court in the Republic Underwriters case, there would be 341 separate occurrences.

Cause and Effect, Expanded
Most courts today apply the cause theory. In the Republic Underwriters case, the United States Court of Appeals said that the issue is resolved by the proper application of the causation rule. All of the injuries were caused by the restaurant's preparation of contaminated food—that is, the illnesses of all of the claimants stemmed from that one cause. The cause theory is a valid and broadly accepted concept in determining the number of occurrences. (Of course, the ruling in one jurisdiction is not necessarily accepted in every jurisdiction. And it has been known that parties to a legal dispute can propose one theory in one court and oppose that same theory in another court.)

It should also be noted that, even though the cause theory is the most widely accepted theory when it comes to determining the number of occurrences, there are other related issues with which courts have to deal.

The court in Mason v. Home Insurance Company of Illinois, for example, affirmed that the number of occurrences for purposes of a liability policy is determined be referring to the cause or causes of the damage rather than to the number of individual claims or injuries (the cause theory). However, the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, also stated that for purposes of the liability coverage, the cause of the occurrence was the act of serving its patrons contaminated food. Therefore, each instance in which a customer was presented with tainted food over the three-day period in this case created additional exposure to liability and constituted a separate occurrence under the policy.

In reversing the trial court's opinion, the appellate court said that “while the court below properly looked to the cause of the injuries to determine the number of occurrences, it failed to correctly identify that the injuries were caused by the restaurant's serving portions of contaminated food to individual patrons. Accordingly, we hold that the claims did not arise out of a single occurrence, but that the insured's service of separate portions of tainted food to individual patrons resulted in multiple occurrences under the policy's definition.”

Limiting Liability
Another pertinent issue is under which aggregate limit of insurance the claims for foodborne illness are to be paid—the general aggregate limit or the products-completed operations aggregate limit. The problem is that while the customer may have been served contaminated food on the insured's premises, the illness did not manifest until hours or days later—after the customer left the restaurant. And, as in the Republic Underwriters case, what if the insured prepares contaminated food on the premises but then serves the food at a church gathering off-premises? Are the claims to be settled using the general aggregate limit or the products-completed operations aggregate limit?

The products-completed operations aggregate limit applies when the injury or damage occurs away from the premises owned or rented by the named insured and arises out of the named insured's product or work; on-premises liability claims are subject to the general aggregate limit. The court in the Mason case stated that the injuries to the restaurant patrons occurred when they consumed food on the restaurant premises, notwithstanding the fact that symptoms of botulism poisoning were not immediately manifested. In other words, the actual bodily injury occurred when the tainted food was served and eaten on-premises, even though the effects of the tainted food were not felt until after the customers left the restaurant. Therefore, the general aggregate limit applied to the claims, since the products-completed operations aggregate required the occurrence to take place away from the insured's premises.

Now, while the cases cited in this article can serve as examples of how some courts have ruled when dealing with foodborne illness claims, the fact is that judicial decisions can vary by court, by state, and by jurisdiction based on the facts of the incidents. Whether foodborne illness claims constitute one occurrence or many, whether the cause is the improper preparation of the food or the serving of the tainted food, or whether the general aggregate limit or the products-completed operations aggregate limit applies—all are questions that remain to be answered for insureds and insurers on a case-by-case basis.