Ariz. Justices Raise Bar For Insurers’ Fortuity Defense

Ryan Buschell was quoted in a Law360 article examining the Arizona Supreme Court’s definition of a fortuitous loss and the ruling’s implications for insurance coverage disputes. Ryan explained that foreseeability alone is not the relevant test and that a loss is non-fortuitous only when the insured knew, at the time coverage attached, that the loss-causing event had already occurred, was already in progress, or was certain to occur.

Ryan also noted that the ruling is consistent with an already broadly accepted approach but provides a particularly clear explanation of when the fortuity test applies and the degree of certainty required. He said that clarity could make the decision useful in coverage disputes across the country.