A recently reported case drove me a little “batty” (pun intended) because it did not reach a conclusion or cite policy provisions when considering whether a case involving bat infestation would be covered under a homeowners policy.1 The appellate court sent the matter back to the trial court for further consideration and development of facts.
Continue Reading Is Bat Infestation and Damage Covered Under A Homeowners Policy?

Property insurance policies with language that gives insurers the power to invoke their “Right to Repair” is a trend that is, unfortunately, becoming more and more common. While the provision in these policies does sound like a good idea in theory, the way insurers utilize them is anything but as intended.
Continue Reading Right to Repair: The Intersection of the Managed Repair Program and the Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

In Florida, many insureds are still litigating over Hurricane Irma claims. One of the issues that insurance adjusters often fail to pay for is stucco damage to the structure caused by wind. Many policies, including Commercial, Businessowners, and even the Homeowners HO2 policy, include a version of the following exclusion:
Continue Reading Insurance Carriers Often Misapply Their Policies: The Exterior Paint Or Waterproofing Exclusion Does Not Apply To Stucco Surfaces

Exclusion provisions in a policy work to limit the range of coverage by restricting certain events or losses; often serving as a basis to deny a claim. Nevada case law has long held the burden is on the insured to prove a claim falls within the scope of coverage, and the insurer bears the burden to prove the applicability of an exclusion. However, for the first time the Supreme Court for the State of Nevada was faced with the question of who bears the burden to prove an exception to a policy’s exclusion provision, essentially restoring coverage.1
Continue Reading Nevada Insureds Bear Burden of Proving Exceptions to Exclusion Provisions

The Big I calls the “where you reside” language found in ISO standard language the “catastrophic homeowners policy exclusion.”1 On its website, it states:
Continue Reading “Residence Premises” and “Where You Reside” Insurance Coverage Gaps—The Killer Exclusion That Is Not Listed As An Exclusion: Part Two

A number of questions posed by coverage practitioners recently spiked about residency requirements found in the vast majority of standard homeowners forms. The spike and questions were the result of a particular Order denying a summary judgement.1 The case is still pending in Florida with trial set August 2, 2021. While that case is relatively new, the policy language which acts as a killer exclusion causing a hidden insurance coverage gap has been a topic of great controversy in the insurance industry for well over a decade. An article was published in an agents’ education journal twenty years ago about the “where you reside” wording found in homeowners insurance policies.
Continue Reading “Residence Premises” and “Where You Reside” Insurance Coverage Gaps—The Killer Exclusion That Is Not Listed As An Exclusion: Part One

In a recent case, Sullivan v. Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company,1 the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s decision finding a policy’s earth movement exclusion barred coverage for damage caused by rockfalls. On Monday, the three-judge panel found the policy’s earth movement exclusion is not limited to damage caused by soil movement, but also included rocks, concluding a “rockfall” is a type of “landslide.”
Continue Reading Rockfall Damage Not a Landslide Victory