Many property insurance policies that provide coverage for business interruption losses also include “extra expense” coverage for reasonable and necessary extra costs to temporarily continue as nearly as possible normal business operations, or to reduce the period of time necessary to resume normal business operations. Some policies also include provisions, sometimes referred to as mitigation provisions, which afford coverage for additional costs incurred by an insured to reduce its business income losses in the event its business operations are disrupted because of a covered loss. The differences between the two coverages, and how they might apply in the event of an otherwise covered business interruption loss, will depend on the wording of the provisions and the facts of the claim.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas recently addressed these issues in Welspun Pipes v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., in which the court granted Liberty Mutual summary judgment dismissing Welspun’s claim for additional costs to transfer production of specialized piping to an affiliate’s facility in India because the insured had not established the required elements for a covered “mitigation” claim.
Welspun suffered an interruption in its business due to a fire that damaged its facility in Little Rock, Arkansas, while the facility was covered by a commercial policy issued by Liberty Mutual. Before the fire, Welspun had entered into a lucrative contract with Enterprise Products Partners to provide specialized piping to be used in the Seaway Expansion Project. A fire damaged Welspun’s Little Rock facility before production of the piping began. Following the fire, Welspun asked Enterprise if it could shift production of the piping to an affiliate’s Indian facility, with all additional costs to be borne by Welspun. Enterprise agreed. Read more ›
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,
The preemptive effect of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on overlapping claims asserted by policyholders based on federal and state common law theories of liability is well established. “Numerous courts have held that claims other than those expressly authorized by the [National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA)] are preempted.” 
Does the efficient proximate cause rule serve to afford coverage for the additional costs to rebuild the foundation of a home in compliance with changed building code requirements beyond the sublimit of liability of an optional building ordinance or law endorsement? In an opinion ordered published on December 21, 2016, the Washington Court of Appeals said no, denying a homeowner the full cost of a new foundation as part of the repair of fire damage. 
It is well-established that claim processing and wrongful denial of coverage disputes involving federal flood insurance policies belong in federal court because they present substantial questions of federal law. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina recently applied this rule when it denied the insureds’ motion to remand a case to state court in 
Principle Solutions Group, LLC, an information technology company, lost $1.717 million when it became the victim of a fraud scheme for which it sought coverage under the terms of a commercial crime policy issued by Ironshore Indemnity, Inc. The policy provided coverage for “Computer and Funds Transfer Fraud,” “resulting directly from a fraudulent instruction directing a financial institution to debit your transfer account and transfer or, pay or deliver money or securities from that account.” At issue was the meaning of the word “directly,” as it pertained to the pending claim.
