January 28, 2019 In a decision from early 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania allowed for the plain language of Cincinnati Insurance Company's (Cincinnati) policy dictate the result in the case. The case is Wescott Elec. Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 310 F. Supp. 3d 521 (E.D. Pa. 2018).

Over the course of 10 years, between 2003 and 2013, an employee of Wescott Electric Company (Wescott) stole nearly $3 million from the company. The employee stole a few hundred thousand dollars each year, and during the last year at issue, 2013, he also stole $700,000 worth of copper wire which he sold for scrap. During the time the theft was occurring, Wescott had four consecutive insurance policies from Cincinnati, each policy lasting three years. All four policies were discovery-based policies, but the sets for 2004 and 2007 provided coverage for a loss discovered up to a year after the policy period, and the 2010 and 2013 policies required the loss to be discovered during the policy period. Wescott discovered the theft during the 4th policy period, and Cincinnati paid the policy limit of a single occurrence of employee theft. Wescott was not satisfied with Cincinnati's payment and brought a suit against Cincinnati arguing that 1. It is entitled to coverage not only the fourth policy but also under the third policy, and 2. That the employee's theft counted as more than one occurrence of employee theft under the policy. Cincinnati filed a motion to dismiss.

Wescott argued that the third policy should cover the loss. Cincinnati argued, and the Court found, that although the employee theft was occurring during the third policy period, the third policy ended five months prior to Wescotts discovery of the theft. The Court found that only the fourth policy covered the loss, not the third policy. The third policy applied only to loss “which is discovered by Wescott during the policy period”. The policy period ended on January 1, 2013 and the theft was not discovered until July 1, 2013. By the plain meaning of the insurance contract, there was no coverage. The Court also found that Wescott was only entitled to coverage for a single occurrence because the term “occurrence” was defined under the policy, including a “series of acts” “committed” by a single employee. The Court found that even though the employee committed two types of theft, the money and the copper wire, both types were included in the “series of acts” which would limit Wescott to the coverage limit for one occurrence.