In the recent decision Marquez v. Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company, No. 6:23-cv-2025-ACC-DCI, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219390 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2024), the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the insurer’s motion in limine and excluded evidence and testimony regarding replacement cost value of damages, matching, and to limit damages to direct physical loss.
Read more ›
In the recent decision Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Qureshi, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that homeowners cannot recover replacement cost benefits unless they have incurred expenses for repairs. The court emphasized that under both the insurance policy’s plain language and Florida Statute §627.7011(3)(a), payment of replacement cost value is contingent upon the actual completion of repairs. The ruling reversed a jury award for homeowners who had sold their property without performing the necessary repairs, addressing a crucial question about recovery for unperformed repairs in property insurance claims.
Read more ›
In a recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Wood v. GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company (2024 WL 3952571), the court affirmed that unambiguous policy limits remain enforceable even when an appraisal award exceeds those limits. This decision provides valuable guidance for insurers handling post-catastrophe claims.
Read more ›
In AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that a loose bolt or fitting that could be remedied simply by tightening it did not constitute “direct physical loss of or damage” to equipment covered under an all-risk property insurance policy.[1]
Read more ›
In J&S Welding, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the U.S. Court of Appeals reviewed a summary judgment ruling in favor of co-defendant West American Insurance Company (“West American”), issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The 6th Circuit held that the property policy’s cosmetic damage exclusion applied to bar coverage because the insured, J&S Welding, Inc. (“Insured”), failed to disclose or produce any expert evidence to rebut the conclusions of the West American’s three experts, who determined the roof’s damage was merely cosmetic.
Read more ›
In Life Skills, Inc. v. Harleysville Insurance Company, 2024 WL 3792261 (D. Mass. 2024), the District Court of Massachusetts found that “collapse” provisions within a commercial property policy were ambiguous where a floor merely sagged without completely falling to the ground.
Read more ›
In Zurich American Insurance Company v. Medical Properties Trust, Inc., 2024 WL 3504060 (Mass. Jul. 23, 2024), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the term “surface waters,” as used in a limitation contained in commercial property insurance policies, was ambiguous in the context of rainwater accumulating on roofs, thereby finding coverage for the insured.
Read more ›
Ending a putative class action, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit examined policy language and two statutes to hold that an insurer does not owe sales tax on top of an actual cash value payment. The citation is Taylor v. Root Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18240 (5th Cir. July 24, 2024).
Read more ›
The recent decision of Marcantel v. State Farm Fire, No. 2:22-CV-01511, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111077 (W.D. La. June 24, 2024) offers valuable lessons for policyholders regarding the importance of cooperation in the insurance claims process.
Read more ›
In MAve Hotel Investors LLC d/b/a The MAve Hotel, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al., 2024 WL 2830909, (S.D.N.Y. 2024), to preserve diversity jurisdiction, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York permitted a plaintiff insured to drop non-diverse, dispensable defendant Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Underwriters”) which subscribed to a commercial property insurance policy.
Read more ›
