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 … Continue Reading
At a recent insurance conference, I heard a discussion in passing between industry folks about the trend of trying to kill the name “all-risk insurance policy.” The basic conversation was that we should stop using the all-risk language and use the form names more because the insinuation has been made that the policies labeled as … Continue Reading
Sudden and Accidental impacts that come in the form of cars, trucks, tractors, or other motorized vehicle are covered under structure or Coverage A insurance under most policies. Often, we encounter with weather related perils, but for policyholders who have suffered a claim loss of property damage caused by a vehicle that runs off the … Continue Reading
We have often discussed the importance of the type of insurance policy involved and the difference it makes from a coverage perspective. For example, the burden of proof is different between a named-peril policy and an all-risk policy. Knowing the difference is important, and knowing what your rights are under the policy you have purchased … Continue Reading
This Labor Day weekend, you probably had family parties and barbecues and weren’t thinking about insurance claims issues and insurance policies. Rightfully so as it is a time to rest and reflect on all the hard work we do to contribute to the success and prosperity of our nation. I don’t profess to be a … Continue Reading
Les Knox and I had an interesting discussion regarding all risk insurance and named perils coverage while debating a loss on the Jersey Shore. Les referred to the policy as an "open perils" policy, and I referred to it as an "all risk" policy. The personal property coverage was written on a "named perils" basis. The … Continue Reading
I have previously blogged about the pros and cons of purchasing earthquake insurance. This week, I write to discuss an associated topic – the differences between an all-risk and a named peril insurance policy, and which is better in a given situation. Essentially, insurers write two kinds of policies for homeowners and small businesses: named … Continue Reading
In litigation, parties’ burdens of proof are extremely important. Litigators must understand the burdens of proof applicable to the case they are involved in. Think of the difference between having to prove that a loss is covered pursuant to specific policy terms and having to prove only that a loss that was fortuitous and it … Continue Reading
California is prone to natural disasters. Just this last Sunday, Southern California was pummeled with rainstorms that drenched the area with intense downpours throughout the day. In Los Angeles County, evidence of this is all over as the affluent neighborhood of Hancock Park found itself underwater in various residential pockets. Even boutique stores along the … Continue Reading
Closely related to the fortuity doctrine, are the doctrines of known loss or loss in progress. Known loss is fairly simple and can often lead to allegations of fraud by the insured. If an insured knows of a loss and then procures insurance to cover it by concealing material information from the insurance company, the … Continue Reading
When fortuity issues arise in insurance disputes, courts make a determination about the fortuity of the loss (as I wrote about in my previous post) and look to see how much control the insured had over the loss or damage. As one might expect, the general rule is the more control the insured has over … Continue Reading
Last week, in continuing my deconstruction of the all-risk policy, I wrote about the fortuity doctrine. This week, I want to begin looking at how courts apply the fortuity doctrine in certain circumstances.… Continue Reading
In my last post, I mentioned that the fortuity doctrine creates many legal issues. Before going into those legal issues, it is important to understand exactly what the fortuity doctrine is.… Continue Reading
After spending the past several weeks looking at common exclusions to the all-risk policy, this week’s blog will focus on more basic requirements that must be met in order for coverage to exist. Some will seem very straightforward, but others actually raise interesting legal issues when the right circumstances arise.… Continue Reading
This week’s review of common exclusions found within all-risk insurance policies focuses on the latent defect or inherent vice exclusion. While other exclusions are somewhat more straightforward – we all may have a good idea of what mold is – this exclusion first raises the question: What is a latent defect or inherent vice?… Continue Reading
Last week I wrote about the smog, smoke, vapor, or gas exclusion and gave an example of how some courts hold that invisible vapors are not included in the common definition of “smoke.” As promised, this week’s post illustrates that other courts feel invisible vapors are included in the definition of “smoke.”… Continue Reading
Continuing my breakdown of common all-risk insurance policy exclusions, I turn this week, to the smog, smoke, vapor or gas exclusion. While one might think that this type of exclusion would apply only to industrial or commercial properties, it can apply to homeowners’ claims as well, and it is important for all policyholders to understand.… Continue Reading
Recently, I wrapped up the discourse of mold exclusions commonly found in all-risk policies. This week I am writing about another extremely common exclusion: the “wear and tear” exclusion.… Continue Reading
Last week’s post introduced the mold exclusion commonly found in many all-risk policies. While last weeks post focused on a situation where mold damage was excluded, this week I am writing about a case where mold damage was covered, even though the policy at issue had a mold exclusion.… Continue Reading
The past few weeks, I wrote about the evolution of the all-risk policy from some of the earliest fire insurance policies and explained that “all-risk” does not mean all loss. This week I want to focus on one of the common exclusions found within all-risk policies – the mold exclusion.… Continue Reading
The past two weeks, I wrote about how all-risk policies developed from the original fire insurance policies. Though I plan to write about the most common exclusions that consumers encounter in all-risk policies, I want to clarify exactly what one can expect from an all risk policy in more general terms.… Continue Reading
Last week, I began a brief history of the all-risk policy. I left off at the point where insurance companies were beginning to add more perils to their policies. Originally, these perils were added by underwriters, many times at the consumer’s request. In an effort to simplify the underwriting process and increase profits insurance companies … Continue Reading
My post last week touched on an ambiguity that arose out of an all-risk policy, and I realized that the all-risk policy is an interesting and important topic that has not yet been discussed in detail on this blog. Insurance has evolved over time, and the all-risk policy is, perhaps, the evolution that has most … Continue Reading
Many homeowners, like me, purchase some sort of insurance for their property: coverage for wind/hurricane, homeowner’s and flood. Typically, a homeowner will expect that a flood insurance policy provides coverage for a flood, a wind/hurricane policy provides coverage for a hurricane or other wind damage, and a homeowner’s policy provides coverage for damages resulting from … Continue Reading
