In BCC Partners, LLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of America, 2024 WL 1050117 (E.D. Mo. March 11, 2024), the Court determined that the plaintiff property owner, as an additional insured, was not entitled to the same insurance coverage as the named insured where the builder’s risk policy limited the scope of recovery for soft costs and rental income. About The Author
A federal court recently held that an insurer could not deny coverage under a homeowner’s policy based upon the failure of the named insured’s son, an “insured person,” to submit to an examination under oath (“EUO”). In Michelle Adeola v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-4643 (E.D. PA February 16, 2023), the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied defendant-insurer’s motion for reconsideration of the lower court’s denial of its motion for judgment on the pleadings, and held that the defendant-insured did not present any errors of law or fact, or new evidence, or a change in controlling law that would preclude coverage based upon the named insured’s son’s failure to submit to an EUO. Specifically, the Court…
The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington decided an insurance coverage case involving Plaintiffs Benny and Guangying Cheung and Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company. Cheung v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co., No. C22-1174 TSZ, 2023 WL 9000432 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 28, 2023). The Court considered whether the Plaintiffs’ loss was caused by theft or vandalism, as neither term was defined in the policy. About The Author
In Carrico v. Stillwater Ins. Co., 23-CV-349-RAJ, 2024 WL 308106 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 26, 2024), the Western District of Washington considered competing motions for partial summary judgment in a property damage case involving a winter storm, where large amounts of rain and melted snow backed the drain up and the force of the water pushed through the exterior door causing damage to the entire basement level. At issue in the case was the application of the policy’s wear and tear exclusion and its exceptions. About The Author
In Mankoff v. Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange (2024 WL 322297 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 29, 2024)), the Court determined that the term “windstorm” was ambiguous as utilized in the subject insurance policy. About The Authors
Introduction In a case of first impression, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (applying Illinois law) rejected a LEG3 exclusion as ambiguous. See S. Capitol Bridgebuilders “SCB” v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176573 (D.D.C. Sep. 29, 2023). The London Engineering Group (“LEG”) is a consultative body for insurers of engineering class risks. Nearly 30 years ago, LEG introduced a series of defects exclusions, including LEG1, LEG2, and LEG3 (which was revised in 2006). Each provides increasing levels of coverage, with LEG3 being the broadest. Generally, while preserving some coverage, LEG3 purports to exclude costs incurred to improve defects of “material workmanship, design, plan, or specification.” Until now, despite frequent usage in builder’s risk…
