The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that numerous lawsuits against the insured for distribution of peanut butter with salmonella contamination triggered one occurrence that meant one retained limit was applicable. J.M. Smucker Co. v. Ace Am ins. Co., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19304 (6th Cir. July 1, 2026).

Smucker made food products, including peanut butter. In 2022 Smucker recalled certain peanut butter products due to potential salmonella contamination. Based on allegations of contamination, consumers brought thousands of claims against Smucker, alleging bodily injury and property damage.

Pursuant to its policy with Ace, Smucker sent notice to Ace. Ace denied coverage, contending that each individual claimant’s exposure to salmonella-contaminated peanut butter constituted a separate single occurrence. Ace relied on the Lot Endorsement in its policy that aggregated the thousands of occurrences into 225 occurrences organized by “lot” (a 24-hour period of peanut butter production). Ace concluded that, for each of the 225 occurrences, Smucker had to reach the $250,000 retainer limit before triggering Ace’s payment obligations.

The Lot Endorsement read:

Any “bodily injury” or “property damage” that

. . .

B. Arises from the substantially same general harmful condition, cause, defect error or suspected deficiency; and

C. Arises out of any one “lot” or “your product” that is prepared or acquired by you:

shall be considered as a single “occurrence”. Such “occurrence” shall be deemed to occur when the “bodily injury” or “property damage” occurs for the first clam arising from such “lot.”

“Lot” was defined as “all goods or products prepared during the time frame that is the normal amount of time for a single ‘lot’ in accordance with the insured’s customary procedures.”

Smucker filed suit against Ace alleging breach of contract. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment to determine the number-of-occurrences question. The district court granted Smucker’s motion and denied Ace’s motion, reasoning that the Salmonella contamination was the lone occurrence and that the Lot Endorsement was ambiguous.

On appeal, Smucker contended that the language of the policy and Ohio’s “cause” test meant the alleged salmonella outbreak was the one occurrence and that the Lot Endorsement did not convert one occurrence into many. The definition of “occurrence” demonstrated that the salmonella contamination was the lone occurrence. “Occurrence” was defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The policy did not define “accident.” The Sixth Circuit defined “accident” as “something that happens by chance or without expectation; an event that is without apparent or deliberate cause.” Under Ohio law, the accident was considered from the insured’s point of view.

The only identifiable accident was the alleged salmonella outbreak which led to the production of potentially contaminated peanut butter. By contrast, each claimant’s consumption of peanut butter was not an accident, and it was not Smucker’s conduct. So, each claimant’s peanut butter consumption could not determine the number of occurrences. Further, the contamination was a single, continuous event.

The court next turned to Ohio’s cause test. Under the test, the number of occurrences was determined by reference to the cause or causes of the damage or injury, rather than the number of individual claims. Where there was but one proximate uninterrupted and continuous cause, all injuries and damages were included within the scope of that single proximate cause. Ace asked the court to view the claims as the occurrences, but the cause test did not permit this outcome.

The court also determined the Lot Endorsement was ambiguous because it was subject to more than one interpretation. The provision was equivocal on whether it redefined “occurrence.” The Lot endorsement did not specify that it was replacing the definition of “occurrence.” Because the Lot Endorsement was unclear whether it created a new definition, that suggested ambiguity.

The judgment of the district court was affimred.