Introduction At least two Florida appellate courts have directly contradicted each other on an increasingly-important question facing Floridians and the insurance industry. The question is as follows: “Are insurance provisions valid which condition the validity of third-party benefits assignments upon the written consent of all insureds and named property mortgagees?” The answer to this question is important because Floridian policyholders often assign their insurance rights to construction companies post-loss to receive services without up-front payment. The Florida Supreme Court was recently asked to answer this important question, and it is likely to weigh in, although it has not yet formally decided to do so. Public Policy Public policy concerns animate assignment-of-benefits (“AOB”) legal disputes in Florida. Florida construction companies and…
Blog Archives
Florida Supreme Court Invited to Resolve Assignment-Of-Benefits Controversy
California Supreme Court Upholds Replacement Cost Estimate Regulation (For Now)
In 2011, the California Insurance Commissioner promulgated a regulation governing replacement cost estimates for homeowners insurance (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, §2695.183 [the Regulation]). After the trial court and intermediate court of appeal invalidated the Regulation,[1] this week the California Supreme Court reversed those decisions in a published decision, Association of California Insurance Companies v. Jones (Cal. Jan. 23, 2017) Case No. S226529. The Regulation was originally enacted in response to complaints from numerous homeowners who found that they were underinsured only after disaster completely destroyed their homes. In investigating these complaints, the Department of Insurance had found that the replacement cost coverage limit recommended by a number of insurers for their policyholders had understated what was actually necessary to…
Summary Judgment May Be Appropriate When Insured Fails to Take Reasonable Measures to Prevent Property Damage
Many first party property insurance policies exclude claims for water damage that occurs when the insured premises is left vacant or unoccupied, unless the insured has used reasonable care to prevent such losses. In litigation challenging the denial of such claims, whether or not the insured’s actions in preventing property damage were reasonable is generally treated as a question of fact to be decided by a jury. However, when the facts are not disputed, and there are no credibility issues presented, a court may grant summary judgment on behalf of the insurer upholding the denial. Such a result recently occurred in a Pennsylvania case involving substantial losses as a result of water damage from burst pipes. Micalis Pazianas, M.D., et…
Arkansas Bars Depreciation of Labor When Calculating Actual Cash Value
Over the last few years, courts have disagreed over whether labor — as opposed to materials — can be depreciated when determining actual cash value (ACV); two of our 2015 posts addressed cases in which the District of Kansas said yes while a Kentucky federal court said no. On Thursday of last week, in a split decision, Arkansas’s highest court sided with the naysayers in Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Goodner, 2015 Ark. 460, 2015 WL 8482788 (Ark., Dec. 10, 2015). Two of the justices filed a vigorous descent. At the present time, the case has no LEXIS citation. The insureds owned a mobile home in Texarkana that sustained a covered loss in July of 2012. The policy provided that…
Can You Burn the House Down and Still Recover From Your Homeowners Insurer? An Illinois Judge Says Yes!
Someday the editors of this blog will have to create a “Hall of Shame” for most witheringly wrong-headed pieces of first-party property insurance jurisprudence, and a clear contender is a federal decision out of Illinois that came down early last month. In Streit v. Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 6736677, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149904 (N.D.Ill., Nov. 4, 2015), the court determined that there was coverage for a fire set by one of the insureds because the intentional acts exclusion in the contract of insurance was void. The state’s Standard Fire Policy did not exclude intentional acts, and the judge held that that meant that fires caused by intentional conduct, “including arson, . . . must be covered.” The…
Posted in Arson, Arson and Fraud, Fire, Fortuity, Homeowners Coverage
Fifth Circuit: Total Loss Amount Caps Insured’s Recovery Even Under Multiple Policies Covering Different Risks
We don’t usually cover cases dealing with Standard Flood Insurance Policies (SFIPs) issued pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program, but a Texas case decided by the federal Court of Appeals earlier this month addresses a broader issue – where the policyholder has multiple policies covering the same property against mutually exclusive risks, such as an SFIP covering flood and a homeowner’s policy covering wind, can his or her recovery ever exceed the total loss amount. In Lowery v. Fidelity Nat’l. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 6848323, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19443 (5th Cir., Nov. 6, 2015), a unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit answered no, in reliance on the insurance principle that bars a double recovery. The…
Posted in Actual Cash Value, Depreciation, Flood, Homeowners Coverage, Hurricane, Hurricane Ike, Replacement Cost, Valuation, Water, Windstorm
California Court Holds Pre-Loss Preventative Measures To Avert A Collapse Are Not Covered as Mitigation.
Last week in Grebow v. Mercury Ins. Co., 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 948, 2015 WL 6166610 (Cal.App., Oct. 26, 2015), a unanimous panel of California’s intermediate level appellate court rejected arguments that expenses incurred to prevent the collapse of a portion of the policyholders’ house were covered as mitigation. The court held that the policy provision requiring an insured to protect the property from further damage was not analogous to a sue and labor provision and did not apply until after a loss that already occurred because to hold otherwise would effectively convert the contract of insurance into a maintenance agreement. The insureds owned a house in Tarzana. In early 2013, concerned over recurring watermarks, they had a general contractor…
Posted in Ambiguity, Collapse, Corrosion, Hidden Decay, Homeowners Coverage, Preservation and Protection, Sue and Labor
New Jersey Panel: If a Flood Is Excluded, So Are the Unhealthy Water-Borne Substances that It Leaves Behind
Yesterday, a unanimous panel of New Jersey’s intermediate level appellate court rejected policyholder arguments that even though flood was excluded, the proximate cause of their Superstorm Sandy loss was the non-excluded peril of damage from “unhealthy water-borne substances” left behind by the receding water. In Riccio v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 6181466, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS 2417 (N.J. App., Oct. 22, 2015), the judges recognized that to hold otherwise would render the flood exclusions in homeowner’s policies meaningless. The insureds owned a home in Little Silver that was inundated by 20”-36” of water when a creek behind their property overflowed its banks during Superstorm Sandy on October 29, 2012. They initially attempted to clean the house themselves, removing…
Posted in Contamination, Flood, Homeowners Coverage, Microorganisma, Superstorm Sandy, Water
ISO Issues Countrywide Revision to the Definition of a “Residence Premises” in its HO Program
The “where you reside” language in the homeowners forms that the Insurance Services Office (ISO) has published since 1991 have spawned litigation around the country for over 20 years, given the number of scenarios which could see the named insured either temporarily or permanently not “in residence” at the property covered by his or her homeowners carrier. In an effort to remedy that, ISO has now released new forms that revise the definition of a “residence premises;” they had an effective date of October 1st in most states. The problematic portion of the old forms was the three-word phrase “where you reside.” The homeowners insuring agreement in the existing ISO program recited that coverage was afforded for “the dwelling on…
Massachusetts Court Refuses to Apply Discovery Rule to Commencement of the Suit Limitations Period
Yesterday in Nurse v. Omega U.S. Insurance., Inc., 2015 Mass. App. LEXIS 158, 2015 WL 5774390 (Mass.App., Oct. 5, 2015), a unanimous panel of Massachusetts’ intermediate level appellate court held that the two-year suit limitation provision in a first-party contract of insurance was not subject to a discovery rule. The decision was a case of first impression in the Bay State’s courts (although two federal cases in the Commonwealth had split on the issue). The insured owned a three-unit residence in Boston which was vacant in December of 2009. The heat was turned off at the time. On December 19th, records from the city’s Water and Sewer Commission showed that the rate of water usage at the property “increased dramatically”…
Posted in Ambiguity, Freezing, Homeowners Coverage, Suit Limitation, Water
