Most property insurance policies require that the insured must provide “prompt” notice of a loss as soon as possible after a covered loss. While many states throughout the country have adopted the Notice-Prejudice Rule which prevents an insurer from denying a claim unless it can demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from the delayed notice of loss, the District Court of Colorado recently issued an opinion rejecting this majority rule in first-party insurance contracts and instead applying the Traditional Notice Rule:
Continue Reading

In December of 2016, I wrote about Sebo v. American Home Assurance Company,1 where the Florida Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s adoption of the “Proximate Efficient Cause” doctrine and found that instead, the lower court should have applied the “Concurrent Causation Doctrine,” as laid out in Wallach v. Rosenberg,2 in a situation where both the excluded cause of faulty construction, combined with the covered causes of rain and wind resulted in a total loss to Sebo’s property.
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

William and Judith Joyce filed a claim with their insurer, Federated National, after suffering water damage to their home. Instead of agreeing to cover the loss, Federated National denied the Joyces’ claim alleging they made material misrepresentations on their insurance application by failing to disclose prior losses they had with their previous carrier.
Continue Reading

Policyholders purchase property insurance and pay lofty premiums with the intention of their insured property being restored to where it was prior to a loss. But what happens when the loss affects only a portion of the siding or has destroyed only a handful of discontinued roofing tiles? Is the policyholder forced to accept mismatching materials? The trial court in Hamlet Condominium Association v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, recently entered an order1 which discussed an insurer’s obligation under a replacement cost value policy to provide a reasonable match between the replacement and existing materials.
Continue Reading

If an insurance broker fails to obtain the insurance coverage requested or misrepresents the scope or extent of coverage, does an insured have a claim against the broker when the insurance they expected to cover their loss does not as a result of the broker’s negligence?
Continue Reading

The California Department of Insurance recently issued a press release announcing that the California Supreme Court affirmed the homeowner reimbursement protections recently decided in California Fair Plan Association v. Garnes.1 Back in June, my colleague Kevin Pollack wrote about the recent decision and whether actual cash value means fair market value or replacement

I recently wrote about the case of Poehler v. Cincinnait Insurance Company,1 in which the Minnesota Supreme Court recently held that Minnesota Statute section 549.09 provides for pre-interest on insurance appraisal awards. Following this decision, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Redwood Falls v. Housing Authority Property Insurance,2 similarly held that the insured was entitled to recover pre-award interest from its insurer.
Continue Reading

Appraisals can result in losing propositions for policyholders. I often teach that policyholders need to make certain that they do their best during appraisal and not expect a bad award to get overturned. Policyholders need very hardworking, honest, and knowledgeable persons selected as their appraisers.
Continue Reading

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion this week in Streit v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company,1 is a major victory for policyholders in Illinois. There, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court judgment entered in favor of my clients, Wesley and Barbara Streit, arising out of Metropolitan’s failure to cover a fire loss to their residence in Illinois. The Seventh Circuit’s ruling establishes that an insurance policy exclusion which precludes innocent co-insureds from recovering violates the minimum level of protection afforded by the Illinois Standard Fire Policy.
Continue Reading