Monthly Archives: November 2014

With Respect to Discoverability, Indiana Federal Court Distinguishes Between Pre-Suit and Post-Suit Reserves

In May, we reported on a Third Circuit decision holding that loss reserve information was generally irrelevant and not discoverable.  In October, a federal court in Indiana came to the same conclusion with respect to post-suit reserves.  In G & S Metal Consultants, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., 2014 WL 5431223, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151431 (N.D.Ind., Oct. 24, 2014), the court agreed that reserves established after litigation were irrelevant because of the multiplicity of factors that were necessarily considered in establishing them.  The opinion suggests that pre-suit reserves are discoverable unless they have been set in anticipation of litigation and consultation with counsel, however. G & S Metal Consultants filed suit for property damage and business interruption loss after

Tagged with:
Posted in Discovery, Explosion, Privilege, Reserves

Seventh Circuit: Under Wisconsin Law, “Continuous or Repeated Exposure” Language Means That a Continuous Trigger Theory Applies

Yesterday, in Strauss v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., – F.3d – , 2014 WL 6435314, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21794 (7th Cir., Nov. 18, 2014), the Court of Appeals held that the use of the phrase “continuous or repeated exposure” in a Wisconsin first-party property policy’s definition of occurrence meant that the contract of insurance contemplated that the continuous trigger theory determined whether loss was covered.  As a result, a claim for 11 years of gradual water damage under a series of insurance policies was held to be timely even though it was first presented when the damage was initially discovered, five years after the last contract of insurance had expired. The Strausses had constructed a home in Mequon, Wisconsin

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Ambiguity, Homeowners Coverage, Trigger, Water

New Jersey Court Holds $22 Million “Named Storm” Deductible Applicable to a Superstorm Sandy Loss

On October 29th, a New Jersey trial court held that a commercial policyholder’s Superstorm Sandy claims were subject to a $22 million “named storm” deductible equal to 2% of the total insurable values at risk at all of the loss locations for which the insured made claim.  In Wakefern Food Corp., et al. v. Lexington Ins. Co., Case No. L-6483-13 (N.J.Super.Ct., Middlesex Cty., Oct. 29, 2014), the court held that damage had begun to occur hours before Sandy was downgraded and no longer constituted a “named storm” as defined and that that fact “created a substantial nexus between the storm and Wakefern’s total losses” justifying application of the deductible. Plaintiff Wakefern was a buying cooperative consisting of the owners of

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Deductible, Hurricane, Superstorm Sandy
About The Property Insurance Law Observer
For more than four decades, Cozen O’Connor has represented all types of property insurers in jurisdictions throughout the United States, and it is dedicated to keeping its clients abreast of developments that impact the insurance industry. The Property Insurance Law Observer will survey court decisions, enacted or proposed legislation, and regulatory activities from all 50 states. We will also include commentary on current issues and developing trends of interest to first-party insurers.
Stay Connected

Email:

Topics
Cozen O’Connor Blogs