Last year in one of my blogposts, I wrote about Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company,1 and the issue whether appraisal is appropriate to resolve a dispute over the cost of repairing physically undamaged siding of townhome buildings to remedy a mismatch with repaired damaged siding. There, a federal district court in Illinois denied the Association’s motion to compel appraisal on the “matching” issue, reasoning it was a question of coverage, not loss amount, and thus inappropriate for appraisal. This coverage issue was subsequently resolved in favor of the Association, the district court concluding that Philadelphia must replace or pay to replace the siding on all four of the townhome buildings’ elevations if no siding is available that matches the undamaged siding on the north and east elevations, as claimed by the Association.2
Continue Reading

An Illinois Public Insurance Adjuster recently contacted me regarding an insurer’s denial of a smoke damage claim. The facts were as follows. While a condominium unit owner was using the fireplace in the unit (“unit 1”), smoke began to fill up in the condominium unit above (“unit 2”). The condominium association made a claim to its property insurer for the smoke damage to unit 2. Concluding that the fireplace flu in unit 1 was improperly installed, the insurer denied the association’s claim, asserting exclusions for damage caused by or resulting from (1) faulty workmanship (“the faulty workmanship exclusion”) and (2) the discharge or release of pollutants (“the pollution exclusion”).
Continue Reading

In my experience, one of the most misinterpreted property insurance policy provisions is the 180-day notice requirement to receive replacement cost benefits. Many in the property insurance industry interpret the provision to require actual repair/replacement within 180 days of the loss. Others interpret the provision to simply require notice within 180 days of the loss of the intent to repair/replace. And, there are those who interpret the requisite 180-day notice to be given only if the insured initially makes claim on an actual cash value basis.
Continue Reading

“One size fits all” is a phrase used to describe pieces of clothing or accessories designed to fit all people. Over time, it has been used to refer to anything meant to apply in all circumstances.

Obviously, one size cannot fit all people. The same holds true when it comes to “freezing” exclusions in homeowner’s insurance policies. Not every freezing exclusion is the same. Compare the following two freezing exclusions.
Continue Reading

As I was walking to catch a train here in Chicago the other day, I saw numerous billboard advertisements throughout the station for Allstate insurance. Each advertisement posed an insurance question and told the reader to ask an Allstate insurance agent, thus suggesting the agent would know the answer.
Continue Reading

Whether labor can be depreciated in arriving at an actual cash value property loss settlement has been a hot topic of debate over these past five years. A federal district court in Ohio recently weighed in on the issue in ruling on motions to dismiss two putative class action lawsuits, one against State Farm Fire & Casualty Company1 and one against Allstate Indemnity Company.2
Continue Reading

Last month, I spoke at the First Party Claims Conference in Rhode Island on the topic of the Standard Fire Insurance Policy, which 165-line form provides coverage for direct loss by fire and lightning.1 My presentation presumed that everyone knows what a fire is, myself included. I changed my mind though after reading the Connecticut federal district court’s recent opinion in National Liability & Fire Insurance Company v. Jablonowski.2
Continue Reading