there is some insurable risk, and the known loss doctrine should not apply. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd. v. First Ins. Co. of Hawai‘i, Ltd. (1994), 76 Hawai'i 277, 875 P.2d 894, 920. “Certainty,” on the other hand, refers not to the likelihood of an occurrence, but rather to the inevitability of an occurrence. Therefore, a “substantially certain” loss is one that is not only likely to occur, but is virtually inevitable. The inquiry should be more of tem-porality than probability — when an event will occur, not whether an event will occur. We also note that, because the effect of the known loss doctrine is to avoid coverage, the burden of proving that the loss was known is on the party seeking to avoid coverage. See Sutton v. Roth, Wehrly, Heiny, Inc. (1981) Ind.App., 418 N.E.2d 229, 232 (<HOLDING>) trans. denied. Therefore, we hold that if an
recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding that in a breach of contract action defendant has burden of proof on any matters of avoidance