In Arkansas Insurance Department Recognizes That Policyholders Do Not Normally Climb on Roofs To Inspect For Damage, Chip Merlin blogged about a May 4, 2020, bulletin issued by the Arkansas Department of Insurance, regarding Windstorm and Hail Claims.1
Continue Reading Updated Arkansas Insurance Bulletin on Windstorm and Hail Claims
Last week the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted Travelers Indemnity Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment allowing them to dodge hail damage claims made by policyholder Mapleton at Countryside Condominium Association Inc. (“Mapleton”).1 Mapleton brought suit against Travelers for breach of contract and bad faith following two hailstorms impacting their buildings in June 2016 and April 2017. The hailstorms caused damage to the condominium’s siding estimated at $2.58 million.
Continue Reading Court Finds Hailstorm Claims Made “Unreasonably Late”
Defendant Insureds, Lonergan Law Firm, PLLC, et al. (“Lonergan”), recently appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals a Northern District of Texas ruling against it, which found it failed to meet a material condition of the policy by not sending its Notice of Claim (“Notice”) to the Claims Department. Landmark American Insurance Co. (“Landmark”) filed suit against its insureds seeking to avoid liability for coverage by arguing that, even though it received notice via a Claim Supplement during the policy period, the insureds failed to send the notice to the location mandated by the Policy.1
Continue Reading Notice of Claim: Precatory “Please” Does Not a Mandatory “Shall” Make
Similar to other states, Arizona legislation and case law creates perimeters around Notice of Loss and Proof of Loss requirements by insurance companies.
Continue Reading Notice of Loss and Proof of Loss Laws in Arizona
Insurance policies always have time deadlines to do something after a loss happens. The failure to follow these may prevent recovery. I will be discussing and answering questions about these policy time requirements over the next several weeks during our Tuesdays at 2 With Chip Merlin.
Continue Reading Time Deadlines To Be Wary Of When Filing Property Insurance and Business Income Loss Claims—Do Not Miss Tuesday At 2 With Chip Merlin
Can you imagine your 85-year-old grandmother or your uncoordinated friend who has never climbed a ladder going up on a slanted roof and inspecting it for wind or hail damage after a storm? Most insurance company lawyers argue the position that their client’s customers have to do this to satisfy the requirement that a loss must be reported “promptly.”
Continue Reading Arkansas Insurance Department Recognizes That Policyholders Do Not Normally Climb on Roofs To Inspect For Damage
Policy language varies when it comes to how and when an insured is required to give notice of a claim. Some policies have a definitive time frame setting forth when notice must be given, but others use terms such as “prompt,” “immediate” or “as soon as practicable.” When the policy does not provide a definitive timeframe, the question of whether an insured’s notice complied with the policy’s notice requirement can be questioned. In such situations, courts will look to various factors to determine whether the insured’s notice was “reasonable.”
Continue Reading Reasonableness of Notice…Is it Fact Specific?
It is hard to believe that we are soon approaching the two-year mark for Hurricane Irma which made landfall on September 10, 2017.
Continue Reading Notification of Hurricane Irma Damages
As any contributor on this blog will tell you, the first step in assessing any claim is to read the Policy. Policy language is ever evolving and changing, especially when it comes to notice requirements. The purpose of a notice requirement in an insurance policy is to enable the insurer to make a timely and thorough investigation.1 Many policies however contain language which provides that notice is to be provided “as soon as practicable,” “promptly,” “immediately” or “within a reasonable time.”
Continue Reading Assessing the “Reasonableness” of Notice
Colorado policyholders should be mindful to review their insurance policies for time limit considerations that may bar them from pursuing insurance benefits beyond two years after the May 8, 2017, hailstorm. While Colorado requires that any action against an insurance company for failure to pay covered benefits must be brought within three years of the date of loss, Colorado allows insurance companies to contractually reduce this time period to as little as six months in commercial and business owner policies of insurance. Failing to bring an action within this prescribed period can ultimately lead to the inability to seek legal recourse where an insurance company is failing to pay covered benefits.
Continue Reading Two Year Anniversary Approaching for Colorado’s May 8, 2017 Hailstorm