Blog Archives

Summary Judgment May Be Appropriate When Insured Fails to Take Reasonable Measures to Prevent Property Damage

Many first party property insurance policies exclude claims for water damage that occurs when the insured premises is left vacant or unoccupied, unless the insured has used reasonable care to prevent such losses. In litigation challenging the denial of such claims, whether or not the insured’s actions in preventing property damage were reasonable is generally treated as a question of fact to be decided by a jury. However, when the facts are not disputed, and there are no credibility issues presented, a court may grant summary judgment on behalf of the insurer upholding the denial. Such a result recently occurred in a Pennsylvania case involving substantial losses as a result of water damage from burst pipes. Micalis Pazianas, M.D., et

Posted in Freezing, Homeowners Coverage, Vacant or Unoccupied, Water, Water

Connecticut Court Holds No Cause Of Action Against Independent Adjuster For Negligence

The states are divided over whether an independent adjuster can be sued for negligence by the insured, and no Connecticut appellate court has ever addressed that issue.  Last Tuesday, however, one of the state’s federal courts predicted that the Connecticut Supreme Court would hold that the adjuster owes no duty to the policyholder in Danielsen v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., et al., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158387, 2015 WL 7458513 (Nov. 24, 2015, D. Conn.), and it dismissed the complaint’s negligence count against the adjuster. The insured owned a home in Madison that suffered water damage from a malfunctioning dishwasher, and he brought suit against the carrier and its independent adjuster, alleging that they had underpaid the loss.  The allegations

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Duty, Loss Adjustment, Water

Fifth Circuit: Total Loss Amount Caps Insured’s Recovery Even Under Multiple Policies Covering Different Risks

We don’t usually cover cases dealing with Standard Flood Insurance Policies (SFIPs) issued pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program, but a Texas case decided by the federal Court of Appeals earlier this month addresses a broader issue – where the policyholder has multiple policies covering the same property against mutually exclusive risks, such as an SFIP covering flood and a homeowner’s policy covering wind, can his or her recovery ever exceed the total loss amount.  In Lowery v. Fidelity Nat’l. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 6848323, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19443 (5th Cir., Nov. 6, 2015), a unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit answered no, in reliance on the insurance principle that bars a double recovery. The

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Actual Cash Value, Depreciation, Flood, Homeowners Coverage, Hurricane, Hurricane Ike, Replacement Cost, Valuation, Water, Windstorm

New Jersey Court Rejects Theory of Spoliation By Encouragement

Three years out, Superstorm Sandy litigation continues to wend its way through New Jersey’s courts.  Last weekend, a federal judge in the state handed a victory to the insurer in Stiso v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155762, 2015 WL 7296081 (D.N.J., Nov. 18, 2015).  In doing so, the court reaffirmed the enforceability of what it called anti-concurrent causation (ACC) “lead-in” language.  It also rejected the doctrine of “spoliation based on encouragement” – the policyholders had argued that they could not meet the burden of showing that all of their loss was caused by a covered peril because the carrier had “actively encouraged” them to begin repair early on and thereby “persuaded” them to destroy

Tagged with:
Posted in Anti-Concurrent Causation, Flood, Sewer Backup, Spoliation, Superstorm Sandy, Water

Insurers From Coast to Coast Notch Suit Limitation Victories

Over the last several months, courts in Washington, Kansas, and Virginia have awarded victories to carriers asserting a suit limitation defense, and there are three valuable takeaways from the decisions.  First, the insurer need not demonstrate that it was prejudiced by the failure to file suit within the limitations period; suit limitation provisions are not like notice of loss or proof of loss clauses.  Second, the clock starts running on the suit limitation period when the policyholder has knowledge of the occurrence which ultimately gives rise to his or her loss, not when he or she has knowledge of the cause of that occurrence.  Third, the provision is a contractual limitations period and, as such, not subject to state laws

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Collapse, Earthquake, Prejudice, Suit Limitation, Water

Florida Court Rejects Claim Replacement Of Undamaged Property Is Necessary For Aesthetic Uniformity

Late last week a federal court in Florida tossed a condominium association’s claims that it was entitled to replace undamaged hallway carpeting, wallpaper, baseboards, and woodwork in order to “achieve aesthetic uniformity” with similar hallway components replaced after water damage.  In Great Amer. Ins. Co. v. Towers of Quayside No. 4 Condominium Ass’n., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150358, 2015 WL 6773870 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 4, 2015), the court held that replacing undamaged property to insure “matching” is only appropriate if the repairs concern “a continuous run” of items such as that. The policyholder owned a 25-story condominium building in Miami.  There was a tiled elevator landing on each floor separating the east and west hallways, and those portions of the

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Direct Physical Loss or Damage, Valuation, Water

New Jersey Panel: If a Flood Is Excluded, So Are the Unhealthy Water-Borne Substances that It Leaves Behind

Yesterday, a unanimous panel of New Jersey’s intermediate level appellate court rejected policyholder arguments that even though flood was excluded, the proximate cause of their Superstorm Sandy loss was the non-excluded peril of damage from “unhealthy water-borne substances” left behind by the receding water.  In Riccio v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 6181466, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS 2417 (N.J. App., Oct. 22, 2015), the judges recognized that to hold otherwise would render the flood exclusions in homeowner’s policies meaningless. The insureds owned a home in Little Silver that was inundated by 20”-36” of water when a creek behind their property overflowed its banks during Superstorm Sandy on October 29, 2012.  They initially attempted to clean the house themselves, removing

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Contamination, Flood, Homeowners Coverage, Microorganisma, Superstorm Sandy, Water

Utah Court: Seepage Over A Months-Long Period Is Excluded As Moral Hazard

Two weeks ago in Wheeler v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2015 WL 5714392, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131736 (C.D.Utah, Sep. 29, 2015), a Utah court barred coverage for a mold loss caused when a vacant log cabin suffered a long-term water leak.  The policy excluded “seepage or leakage over a period of weeks, months or years,” and the judge held that that language embodied the concept that such a loss was a moral hazard – a preventable risk best assumed by the policyholder rather than by his or her homeowners insurer. The insured owned a seasonal cabin in Duck Creek that was not used during the winter months, and his practice was to leave both the water and the heat turned

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Ambiguity, Exclusions, Inherent Vice and Latent Defect, Mold, Moral Hazard, Seepage or Leakage, Water, Wear and Tear

Massachusetts Court Refuses to Apply Discovery Rule to Commencement of the Suit Limitations Period

Yesterday in Nurse v. Omega U.S.  Insurance., Inc., 2015 Mass. App. LEXIS 158, 2015 WL 5774390 (Mass.App., Oct. 5, 2015), a unanimous panel of Massachusetts’ intermediate level appellate court held that the two-year suit limitation provision in a first-party contract of insurance was not subject to a discovery rule.  The decision was a case of first impression in the Bay State’s courts (although two federal cases in the Commonwealth had split on the issue). The insured owned a three-unit residence in Boston which was vacant in December of 2009.  The heat was turned off at the time.  On December 19th, records from the city’s Water and Sewer Commission showed that the rate of water usage at the property “increased dramatically”

Tagged with:
Posted in Ambiguity, Freezing, Homeowners Coverage, Suit Limitation, Water

Florida to Decide What Test Applies When Concurrent Multiple Perils Cause a Loss

For years, Florida courts have been seesawing between two different doctrines to determine whether there is coverage under a property policy when two perils – one excluded and one included — combine to cause a loss.  Two districts of the state’s intermediate level appellate court have applied one test and a third has applied another, with the most recent decision being American Home Assur. Co. v. Sebo, 141 So.3d 195 (Fla.Ct.App., Sep. 18, 2013).  On October 7th of last year, the state’s highest court accepted review in the Sebo matter, and oral argument was conducted on September 2, 2015.  Some clarity will finally emerge in the Sunshine State with respect to this issue. When multiple perils combine to cause a

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Anti-Concurrent Causation, Efficient Proximate Cause, Faulty Workmanship or Design, Homeowners Coverage, Hurricane Wilma, Water
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