In Mandarin Oriental, Inc. v. HDI Glob. Ins. Co. et al., Civil Action No. 23 Civ. 4951, 2025 WL 1638071 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2025), the District Court of the Southern District of New York followed the modern trend and allowed discovery of reserve and reinsurance information in coverage litigation with allegations of bad faith.
Read more ›
In El Dueno, LLC v. Mid-Century Insurance Company (2025 WL 1540329) (10th Cir. 2025)), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgement on behalf of the insurer on the basis that the insurer did not act in bad faith when it denied the insured’s claim based on an engineering report that contradicted an adjuster’s initial findings.
Read more ›
In Caribe D. Billie v. Plymouth Rock Assurance Corp. et al, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted Plymouth Rock Assurance Corp.’s (“Insurer”) motion for summary judgment, holding that the Insurer was prejudiced by its insured’s failure to cooperate with the Policy’s “Duties After Loss” provision.
Read more ›
In Comprehensive Medical Center, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2025 WL 416814 (9th Cir. 2025), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s determination that the period of restoration tied to water damage at the insured’s commercial property was the theoretical period when repairs should have been completed with reasonable speed, not the actual period of repairs thwarted by extraneous delays.
Read more ›
In Bob Robison Commercial Flooring Inc. v. RLI Insurance Company (2025 WL 852889 (8th Cir. 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit determined that an ensuing loss provision of a builder’s risk insurance policy did not restore coverage resulting from defective workmanship where the insured failed to identify a separate covered peril.
Read more ›
In Ram Krishana Inc. d/b/a Motel 6 Sulphur v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. (2025 WL 371016) (S.D.N.Y. 2025)), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that the plaintiff lacked an insurable interest in property it insured because it did not own or possess the property or suffer economic loss due to the property’s destruction. Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to indemnity for damage to the property it purported to insure under a commercial property insurance policy.[1]
Read more ›
In Jackson v. Spinnaker Insurance Company, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania considered a homeowners insurance coverage dispute, ultimately finding that questions of residency and alleged fraudulent misrepresentations precluded summary judgment. However, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer on the bad faith claim, emphasizing that a thorough investigation into a questionable claim does not amount to bad faith
Read more ›
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 ›
