While I often argue that depreciating labor simply does not make sense, insurers continue to push the question of whether the depreciation of labor costs in Actual Cash Value policies is acceptable. Though several jurisdictions have rejected the depreciation of labor, surprisingly, the recent trend of jurisdictions touching upon the subject has been to allow for the depreciation of labor.
Continue Reading Colorado Joins a Growing List of Jurisdictions Allowing Depreciation of Labor Costs When Determining Actual Cash Value

A federal District Court in Illinois has determined that the term “commencing” is ambiguous in a property insurance policy that provides coverage for “loss or damage commencing [d]uring the policy period…[w]ithin the…United States of America.”1

At issue in Temperature Service Company, Inc. v. Acuity, was whether property damage, that began before the policy period, but continued on and after the policy period “commenced”, was covered under the first party property insurance policy issued by Acuity.

Continue Reading “Commencing” Deemed Ambiguous in Property Insurance Policy

In California, if a property insurance policy does not specifically require a collapse to be complete or actual falling down to trigger coverage, then an imminent (i.e., impending) collapse will probably trigger coverage.1

However, on the flipside, if a policy does specifically require a collapse to be “complete” or “actual” falling down, then an imminent collapse is not sufficient.2

Continue Reading Do All Insurance Policies Require a Total Collapse to Trigger Collapse Coverage?

There is a new case out of Arkansas discussing ambiguous terms within policies.1 I have not previously blogged on any matter from Arkansas, so this seemed like a good opportunity. My practice covers mainly the Midwest states, so I don’t want to leave anyone out. So, this is for all of you in the "Land of Opportunity" and in "The Natural State" of Arkansas.

Continue Reading Ambiguous Terms in Arkansas