The answer to the above question on Certificates of Insurance1 is found in another long-awaited answer to a certified question2 that was tendered nearly a year ago from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to the Washington Supreme Court in T-Mobile USA v. Selective Insurance Company of America. The question certified was:

Under Washington law, is an insurer bound by representations made by its authorized agent in a certificate of insurance with respect to a party’s status as an additional insured under a policy issued by the insurer, when the certificate includes language disclaiming its authority and ability to expand coverage?
Continue Reading

In Florida, if an insured fails to meet a post-loss obligation, is it a complete bar to recovery? In a recent decision, the Third District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the Fourth District Court of Appeal and held that an insurer must be prejudiced by the insured’s non-compliance with a post-loss obligation in order for the insured to forfeit coverage.
Continue Reading

The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals in Noonan v. American Family Mutual Insurance,1 recently upheld that the Minnesota Amendatory Homeowners Endorsement (“Endorsement”) excludes “matching.” The Endorsement provides that an insurer does “not pay to repair or replace undamaged property due to mismatch between damaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.”
Continue Reading

In a recent court opinion,1 the New Jersey Appellate Division interpreted a homeowner’s insurance policy’s water damage exclusion and determined whether damage from a broken municipal water main under a public street was covered under the policy. In that case, a homeowner brought an action against his insurer for breach of contract after the insurer disclaimed coverage on the basis that damage to his real and personal property resulting from a broken water main was excluded under the policy as flood, surface and ground water intrusion.
Continue Reading

The appraisal alternative dispute resolution procedure in most first-party property insurance policies in Florida is a valuable process for insureds. In our experience at Merlin Law Group, few states in the country have a greater need for an understandable, enforceable appraisal process than Florida. Since at least Hurricane Andrew in 1992, policyholders and insurers have resorted to appraisal as a quicker, more cost-effective, binding means to determine a critical issue under the policy – the amount of a loss.
Continue Reading

In March, I posted a blog on the Hicks v. American Integrity Insurance Company opinion,1 in which a Florida court ruled that policy language stating: “we do not insure…for loss…caused by…constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water…over a period of 14 or more days,” did not preclude coverage for damage caused during the first 13 days of a water leak.
Continue Reading

Ashley Harris

The Iowa Supreme Court determined that “appraisers may determine the factual cause of damage to insured property to ascertain the amount of loss,” in Walnut Creek Townhome Association vs Depositors Insurance Company.1 I am proud that Ashley Smith (nka Ashley Harris) was cited by the court for her analysis of the issue.
Continue Reading