Nationwide Insurance Company claims managers may need to add botany and common-sense training to their claims education program. A Nationwide claims specialist sent photos of hibiscus plants to police indicating that Nationwide policyholders with a fallen tree loss were growing marijuana. The Nationwide policyholders look straight out of central casting as the “perfect aging couple” with grey hair and looking anything other than hippy dippy pot growers. Continue Reading
The saying goes like this, “Say what you mean, and mean what you say.” We all know the business of contract construction is no easy task. But underwriters should go the extra mile to ensure a property insurance policy reads as the carrier intends or steep consequences may ensue. Something as minor as a misplaced comma or semicolon could be consequential in deciding whether an insured is entitled to coverage under the policy. Continue Reading
According to TWIA’s website, as of November 15, 2017, TWIA has received 72,902 claims related to Hurricane Harvey. So, what happens next? Many of TWIA’s policies, procedures and deadlines are different from that of a typical homeowner’s policy. Thus, it is imperative you read your policy to ensure no deadlines are missed. Below are important deadlines and basic information to remember as you are filing your claim. Continue Reading
In a prior blog, I discussed the California Supreme Court’s decision in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court,1 regarding the post-loss assignment of insurance benefits. In Fluor, the California Supreme Court held that section 520 of California’s Insurance Code prohibits insurance companies from refusing to honor post-loss assignments of benefits, regardless of whether the assigned benefits (a) had accrued at the time of the assignment (i.e., constituted “Noncontingent Benefits”), or (b) had not yet accrued but could accrue if additional events occurred or additional conditions satisfied (i.e., constituted “Contingent Benefits”). Continue Reading
The Virgin Islands Division of Banking, Insurance and Financial Regulation recently issued two bulletins.1
The first, Bulletin 2017-07, required property and casualty insurers, effective January 15, 2018, to maintain and submit to the Commissioner with its new or renewal application, a copy of its Catastrophe Response Plan for the benefit of its policyholders in the event of a disaster or emergency which describes how it will respond to a catastrophe affecting its policyholders in this Territory. In providing background for the Bulletin, the Division explained:
In light of the recent passage of Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria, which devastated many islands throughout the Caribbean and the infrastructure of the Districts of St. Thomas – St. John and St. Croix, this Bulletin is being issued to all insurers for the protection of policyholders in the Territory. . . . [T]he impact the storms had on the Territory was so great that many Virgin Islands residents are now displaced in various parts of the United States. Not only was there severe damage to properties but communication between persons in and outside the Territory was limited and at times nonexistent. As such, the Commissioner of Insurance recognized that the interest of the public demands that certain insurers have a Catastrophe Response Plan in place should a similar emergency arise again. Continue Reading
While many carriers continue their attempt to exclude overhead and profit from property damage claim payments made on an actual cash value basis, the majority approach across the United States has been to include general contractor overhead and profit in actual cash value payments for losses where repairs would be reasonably likely to require a general contractor, even if no general contractor is used or no repair or replacement is made.
The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agency expressed a similar standard in its 1998 initial issuance, and 2007 re-issuance, of Bulletin No. B-5.1 – Calculation Of Actual Cash Value: Prohibition Against Deducting Contractors’ Overhead And Profit From Replacement Cost Where Repairs Are Not Made.
Colorado DORA Bulletin No. B-5.1 provides:
II. Applicability and Scope
This bulletin is intended for and applies to all property and casualty companies providing replacement cost coverage of dwellings. . .
III. Division Position
Insurers shall be prohibited from deducting contractors’ overhead and profit in addition to depreciation when policyholders do not repair or replace the structure.
. . . .
The position of the Division of Insurance is that the actual cash value of a structure under a replacement cost policy, when the policyholder does not repair or replace the structure, is the full replacement cost with proper deduction for depreciation. Deduction of contractors’ overhead and profit, in addition to depreciation is not consistent with the definition of actual cash value.
When taken into consideration with much of the case law that has developed around the country, the Colorado Division of Insurance Bulletin provides strong support for policyholders’ entitlement to general contractor overhead and profit in actual cash value payments where it is reasonably likely that a general contractor would be required to complete the repairs to the insured property.
More recently, Judge Pratt of Arapahoe County relied on Bulletin No. B-5.1 and case law from other jurisdictions in determining that the law of Colorado with regards to overhead and profit in the context of actual value payments:
[I]s that overhead and profit is to be included as part of the actual cash value determination where it is reasonably likely that the services of a general contractor will be required to repair or replace the covered damage.1
When considering Judge Pratt’s decision, the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agency Bulletin No. B-5.1, and the extensive amount of case law from other jurisdiction, it becomes clear that overhead and profit should be included with payments made on an actual cash value basis in circumstances where the policyholder would be reasonably likely to need a general contractor in repairing or replacing the damaged property in issue under Colorado law.
1 Woodgate South Homeowners Assoc. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2013cv30784 (Colo. Dist. Ct. Oct. 20, 2014).
Recently, we received an inquiry on the hazards associated with New Hampshire’s Insurance-to-Value Policy Rules. For those not familiar with value-policy laws, I refer you to a prior article for a refresher on what a valued policy is, and how it affects claims in New Hampshire. Continue Reading
In theory, the appraisal process is intended to provide an efficient means of determining the cost to repair or replace damaged property. It is also intended to have a degree of finality – once the appraisal panel determines the amount of damages, the damages are typically fixed at that amount. Continue Reading
In a win for third-party victims of a cyber security attack, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia reversed a lower court’s decision dismissing a class-action suit against their health insurer for breach of contract, negligence, and violation of various state consumer-protection statutes, after their personal information was stolen during a data breach.1 Continue Reading
Please join the Professional Public Adjusters Association of New Jersey (PPAANJ) at its Fall Meeting on November 15, 2017, at the Molly Pitcher Inn in Red Bank, New Jersey. Continuing Education credits will be provided for New Jersey, New York & Pennsylvania.
PPAANJ is pleased to announce that Mr. Joseph A. McDougal, Manager Licensing and Insurance Education, Consumer Protection Services, New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance, will be a special guest speaker. Mr. McDougal will discuss continuing education for New Jersey public insurance adjusters and be open to questions from the membership. Don’t miss this opportunity to meet Mr. McDougal and discuss our continuing education requirements. Continue Reading