In Comprehensive Medical Center, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2025 WL 416814 (9th Cir. 2025), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s determination that the period of restoration tied to water damage at the insured’s commercial property was the theoretical period when repairs should have been completed with reasonable speed, not the actual period of repairs thwarted by extraneous delays. About The Authors
In Bob Robison Commercial Flooring Inc. v. RLI Insurance Company (2025 WL 852889 (8th Cir. 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit determined that an ensuing loss provision of a builder’s risk insurance policy did not restore coverage resulting from defective workmanship where the insured failed to identify a separate covered peril. About The Authors
In Ram Krishana Inc. d/b/a Motel 6 Sulphur v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. (2025 WL 371016) (S.D.N.Y. 2025)), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that the plaintiff lacked an insurable interest in property it insured because it did not own or possess the property or suffer economic loss due to the property’s destruction. Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to indemnity for damage to the property it purported to insure under a commercial property insurance policy.[1] About The Author
In Jackson v. Spinnaker Insurance Company, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania considered a homeowners insurance coverage dispute, ultimately finding that questions of residency and alleged fraudulent misrepresentations precluded summary judgment. However, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer on the bad faith claim, emphasizing that a thorough investigation into a questionable claim does not amount to bad faith About The Author
In the recent decision Marquez v. Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company, No. 6:23-cv-2025-ACC-DCI, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219390 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2024), the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the insurer’s motion in limine and excluded evidence and testimony regarding replacement cost value of damages, matching, and to limit damages to direct physical loss. About The Author
