Texas Supreme Court Enforces Anti-Concurrent Causation, Bars Coverage Where Wind and Flood Combine to Cause the Loss

Last Friday, Texas’ highest court unanimously endorsed lower court and federal court decisions giving effect to anti-concurrent causation (ACC) clauses and held that such provisions bar coverage where a combination of an excluded peril and an included peril operate together to cause the loss.  In JAW The Pointe, LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2015 WL 1870054, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 343 (Tex., Apr. 24, 2015), that meant that the insured could not recover where flood and wind damage triggered the enforcement of city ordinances even though the covered wind damage component was arguably sufficient in and of itself to cause the loss.

shutterstock_119515462The policyholder owned The Pointe Apartments – a complex in Galveston, Texas that was heavily damaged when Hurricane Ike came ashore on September 13, 2008.  Lexington afforded the primary layer of property insurance protection under a $25 million all-risk contract of insurance that covered dozens of local apartment complexes.  Wind was not an excluded peril, and Lexington paid its building consultant’s estimate ($1,278,000) for the wind damage in full.

Galveston City ordinances required that any complexes that were “substantially damaged” – meaning that they sustained damage equal to or exceeding 50% of market value – be raised to a base flood elevation, however, and raising The Pointe 3’ was not feasible.  After the policyholder submitted a repair permit application with a repair estimate of $6,256,887, which was well in excess of the city-determined market value of $2,247,924, Galveston notified the insured that it had determined that the ordinances had been triggered, and the policyholder elected to demolish and rebuild the apartments. Read more ›

About The Author
Tagged with: ,
Posted in Anti-Concurrent Causation, Causation, Flood, Hurricane, Hurricane Ike, Ordinance or Law, Windstorm

A New Twist in the California Debate Over Allegedly Inadequate Replacement Cost Limits in Homeowners’ Policies

shutterstock_105910559The April 8, 2015 decision of the California Court of Appeals in Ass’n. of Cal. Insurance Companies v. Jones, 2015 WL 1569669, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 298 (Cal.Ct.App., Apr. 8, 2015) held that the state’s Insurance Commissioner overstepped his authority in attempting to regulate the content and format of replacement cost estimates under homeowners’ insurance policies.  Although the legislature may choose to provide such a definition, it has not done so.  While the sufficiency of policy limits remains a concern in the insurance industry and there are other valid statutes in effect that address replacement cost, pending a potential appeal of the decision the Regulation at issue, Title 10, Cal. Code of Regulations, §2695.183, is therefore no longer effective.

Fire victims, whose homes have been lost in any number of Southern California wildfires, have repeatedly argued that their replacement cost limits were insufficient to cover their rebuilding costs.   Historically, many such homeowners filed lawsuits against their brokers or their insurers, alleging negligence and misrepresentation in policy placement.  Insurers, community activists, and others have held numerous public hearings on the subject, and agencies have conducted studies to assess the adequacy of replacement cost limits in homeowners’ policies over the last decade.  Attempting to remedy some of these concerns, effective in June 2011, the Insurance Commissioner issued  §2695.183.  Entitled “Standards for Estimates of Replacement Value,” this elaborate Regulation set forth requirements for establishing replacement cost limits for homeowner’s policies. Read more ›

About The Authors
Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Loss Adjustment, Replacement Cost, Unfair Insurance Practices

Kentucky Court: Depreciating Labor to Get Actual Cash Value Is Like Making the Insured Use a Very Old Roofer With Debilitating Arthritis to Repair the Roof

Surprisingly few states have addressed the question of whether an insurer can depreciate labor – as opposed to materials – to arrive at actual cash value (ACV).  Two weeks ago in Bailey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2015 WL 1401640, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37568 (E.D.Ky., Mar. 25, 2015), a federal court in Kentucky held that it was impermissible to do so, quoting an Oklahoma opinion that analogized such a step to requiring the policyholder to use “a very old roofer with debilitating arthritis who can barely climb a ladder or hammer a nail” to effect repairs to a roof.

shutterstock_34430626The case was a proposed class action by a West Liberty, Kentucky dentist whose office was damaged by a tornado and an Owingsville, Kentucky homeowner whose residence was hit by a fire.  In both cases, the State Farm policies afforded replacement cost coverage but authorized the carrier to make its initial payment on an ACV basis.  In the two cases, the insurer calculated ACV by determining replacement costs and then depreciating both materials and labor.  The policyholders argued that labor, unlike construction materials which logically age and wear and tear, was not subject to depreciation.

In his opinion, Judge Henry Wilhoit observed that Kentucky law defined ACV as “replacement cost of property at the time of the loss less depreciation.”  He then observed that the question presented – “whether the installation of materials, i.e. the labor, is subject to depreciation?” – was one of first impression in Kentucky.  He concluded that the answer was no.  In the words of the court: Read more ›

About The Author
Tagged with: ,
Posted in Actual Cash Value, Depreciation, Fire, Replacement Cost, Tornado

Squatter’s Warming Fire in Vacant Home Held Not to be Vandalism by Divided California Court

In February, we published a Post about a Florida decision that aligned that state with the clear majority of American courts that have held that the destruction of property by an intentionally set fire is encompassed within the terms “vandalism and malicious mischief.”  Last Friday, in Hung Van Ong v. Fire Ins. Exch., 2015 WL 1524464, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 290 (Cal.Ct.App., Apr. 3, 2015), two of the three justices on a California intermediate level appellate court panel rejected that approach, reversing a grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer in a case in which a vacant dwelling had been damaged when a transient set a fire on the kitchen floor to warm himself because they concluded that there was no evidence of “actual ill-will or intent to injure.”  In a considerably more convincing opinion, the third member of the panel dissented and argued that the trial court should have been affirmed.

shutterstock_113442877The policyholder had a rental property in a “relatively isolated location” that was vacated by the last tenant in February 2010.  On December 20, 2011 the home was damaged by a fire.  Subsequent investigation indicated that it was a “warming fire” set by a transient that got out of hand when he attempted to kick the burning firewood out the back door.

The contract of insurance excluded “direct or indirect loss from . . . Vandalism or Malicious Mischief . . . if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days.”  The term “vandalism” was not defined in the policy.  The insured’s claim was denied, and the policyholder brought suit in March of 2012.  After the trial court granted Fire Insurance Exchange’s motion for summary judgment, an appeal followed. Read more ›

About The Author
Tagged with: ,
Posted in Arson, Exclusions, Fire, Vacant or Unoccupied, Vandalism

Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner: Don’t Deny Earthquake Claims as Man-Made by Linking Them to Fracking

The jury is still out on whether hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” causes earthquakes, but carriers whose policies afford coverage for quakes have recently been denying such claims, asserting that they are excluded because they are attributable to a man-made cause – oil and gas production – rather than to a purely natural one.  Early last month, Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak cautioned against that, issuing a Bulletin warning earthquake insurers that his office would be forced “to take appropriate action to enforce the law” if they continued to deny quake claims on the basis of what he called “unsettled science.”

shutterstock_239934553Oklahoma has experienced a remarkable rise in earthquake activity in recent years.  According to the Oklahoma Geological Survey, the state had 567 quakes of Magnitude 3.0 or greater in 2014.  That was a five-fold increase over 2013, a 14-fold increase over the 2008-2012 average, and a 100-fold increase over earlier years.  The 2014 number exceeded the total number of earthquakes in Oklahoma during the preceding 30 years combined; no state in the lower 48 states, including California, saw more quakes last year.

The culprit is believed by many to be the disposal process associated with fracking.  Fracking itself involves injecting a slurry of water, sand, and chemicals into wells to fracture oil- and gas-bearing rock strata and thereby permit the oil and gas to escape to the surface.  The suspicion is not that fracking itself is the malefactor but rather the subsequent disposal of its principal byproduct – millions and millions of gallons of toxic fluid that travels back to the surface with the extracted oil and gas and is then injected deep underground. Read more ›

About The Author
Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Causation, Earthquake, Earthquake Insurance, Regulation

Eleventh Circuit: Sinkhole Loss in Florida Must Impair the Property’s Structural Integrity to be Covered

shutterstock_126855287Effective in 2005, Florida statutes defined “sinkhole loss” to mean “structural damage to the building, including the foundation, caused by sinkhole activity,” and they left the all-important term “structural damage” undefined.  Homeowner’s policies issued in the state employed that formulation until May 17, 2011, when Florida adopted a much narrower five-part definition of structural damage that applied to policies affording coverage for sinkhole loss, and many courts construing the 2005 language held that the term “structural damage” meant nothing more than “damage to the structure.”  Several weeks ago in Hegel v. First Liberty Ins. Corp., 778 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir., Feb. 27, 2015), a unanimous Eleventh Circuit panel held: (1) that defining structural damage to mean any “damage to the structure” was “facially unreasonable” and “untenable;” and (2) that the term was properly understood to mean “damage that impairs the structural integrity of the building.”  It also refused, however, to look to the narrow 2011 formulation when dealing with a policy and a loss that preceded its effective date.

The Hegels owned a home in Spring Hills, Florida, and they made an insurance claim after discovering damage to the walls and floors on March 1, 2011.  Their homeowner’s carrier, First Liberty, denied the claim after its engineering expert concluded that the damage could be attributable to differential settlement and ordinary concrete shrinkage as opposed to sinkhole activity and that, in any case, it did not rise to the level of structural damage as defined in the 2011 statute.  The Hegels then secured several engineers of their own, who concluded that the home had suffered “widespread minor cracking” as a result of sinkholes and recommended $145,775 in subsurface grouting and $20,743.17 in cosmetic damage repairs. Read more ›

About The Author
Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Direct Physical Loss or Damage, Homeowners Coverage, Sinkhole

Order of Civil Authority Claim for Superstorm Sandy Barred by Flooding Exclusion in New York

On Thursday of last week, a federal court in New York City tossed an Order of Civil Authority (OCA) claim by a New York City law firm in Bamundo, Zwal & Schermerhorn, LLP v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 2015 WL 1408873, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39409 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 26, 2016).  The policy extended coverage to loss of business income caused by an OCA issued “as the result of a Covered Cause of Loss,” but it excluded flooding from the definition of that term.

shutterstock_186026504The insured was a law firm with offices on John Street in lower Manhattan.  On October 28, 2012, the Mayor of New York City issued an executive order evacuating all homes and business located in the area.  Superstorm Sandy made landfall the next day, and parts of lower Manhattan – though not the area around the policyholder’s offices – quickly experienced “never-before-seen flood levels.”  On October 31st, a second executive order continued the evacuation and directed that buildings could only be reoccupied after being inspected and declared safe; 14 more orders were subsequently issued extending those restrictions.  The law firm’s offices were ultimately declared available for occupancy on Christmas Eve, and the policyholder moved back in on January 4, 2013.

The policy afforded coverage for

the actual loss of Business Income you sustain when access to your scheduled premises is specifically prohibited by order of a civil authority as the direct result of a Covered Cause of Loss to property in the immediate area of your scheduled premises.

This extension of coverage was subject to a 72-hour waiting period deductible and limited to a period of 30 consecutive days.  In addition, the contract of insurance excluded loss caused by water, including flooding, from the definition of what constituted a covered cause of loss.  The insured made claim for loss of business income for the entire evacuation period (October 30th through January 4th), and it filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith after the insurer denied. Read more ›

About The Author
Tagged with: ,
Posted in Bad Faith, Flood, Order of Civil Authority, Superstorm Sandy

New Jersey Trial Court Holds Storm Surge Not Subject to Flood Sublimit Where Policy Expressly Includes “Ensuing Storm Surge” in Named Windstorm Coverage

In recent years, many courts have held that storm surge is a species of excluded flood loss; we reported on a New York example in July.  This week, in Public Serv. Enter. Group, v. ACE Amer. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 1428370, Unpub. LEXIS 620 (N.J.Super., Mar. 23, 2015), a New Jersey trial court granted summary judgment to Public Service Electric & Gas (PSEG) and held that the flood sublimit did not apply to a claim for Superstorm Sandy loss from storm surge where the contracts of insurance specifically recited that coverage for a “named windstorm” – which was not subject to any sublimit  –  included “ensuing storm surge.”

shutterstock_172810640Eight large PSEG generating stations and a number of smaller distribution facilities were damaged when Superstorm Sandy came ashore in New Jersey on October 29, 2012.  The utility’s current estimate of the loss exceeds $500 million.  It was undisputed that a storm surge – which the court described as “a hurricane-generated inundation of water” – of “record-breaking height” caused the lion’s share of the damage.

PSEG had $1 billion in layered property coverage from 11 different insurers, and it made claim for the loss.  The policies had no sublimit for “named windstorms” in New Jersey, but there was a $250 million sublimit for loss occasioned by the peril of “flood” and a $50 million sublimit for flood loss to property “located in Flood Zones A & V.”  The insurers took the position that PSEG’s recovery was capped at $50 million, and the utility brought suit.  On Monday of this week, Judge Thomas Vena granted PSEG’s motion for summary judgment and held that the flood sublimits did not apply to its Superstorm Sandy claims. Read more ›

About The Author
Tagged with: ,
Posted in Causation, Efficient Proximate Cause, Ensuing Loss, Flood, Superstorm Sandy, Windstorm

Iowa’s Highest Court: Damage by Rainwater is Damage by Rain

Last July, we posted that an intermediate level appellate court in Iowa had held that a policy excluding loss “caused by rain” did not bar coverage for loss occasioned by the non-excluded peril of “rainwater.”  On Friday, the state’s highest court threw cold water on such nonsense, holding that there was no distinction between rain and rainwater for coverage purposes.  No justice disagreed, though the court split 4-3 on another issue.  The decision can be found at Amish Connection, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2015 WL 1260085, 2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 32 (Iowa, Mar. 20, 2015).

shutterstock_13964104(1)The insured operated the Amish Connection Store in Crossroads Shopping Mall in Waterloo, Iowa.  Rooftop drains discharged into a 4” cast-iron drainpipe that ran above the store’s ceiling tiles and then down the back wall of the space and into a storm sewer.  The pipe was leaky and extensively-corroded, and it burst during a rainstorm on June 14, 2010, flooding the store and causing substantial damage to the policyholder’s inventory, office supplies, and records.

Amish Connection had a businessowner’s policy with State Farm that excluded loss “to the interior of any building or structure, or the property inside any building or structure, caused by rain . . . unless . . . the building or structure first sustains damage by an insured loss to its roof or walls through which the rain . . . enters[.]”  It was undisputed that the rainstorm caused no damage to roofs or walls.  State Farm denied, and the insured brought suit. Read more ›

About The Author
Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Anti-Concurrent Causation, Corrosion, Ensuing Loss, Flood, Water

California Court Holds Product Contamination Insurance Does Not Cover Ingredients Contaminated by Insured’s Supplier

shutterstock_7144888On February 6th, an intermediate level California appellate court held that a product contamination policy only covered contamination that occurs during or after manufacturing operations by the insured, meaning that there was no coverage where the policyholder’s product was found to be adulterated because it used an ingredient that had been contaminated by a third-party supplier.  The decision is Windsor Food Quality Co. v. Underwriters of Lloyds of London, 2015 WL 901867, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 195 (Cal.App., Feb. 6, 2015).  One of the three panel members filed a lengthy and convincing dissent that is arguably a more correct interpretation of the language at issue.

The policyholder was Windsor Food Quality Company, a frozen food manufacturer.  Windsor’s ground beef supplier was Westland/Hallmark Meat Company.  In January 2008, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) suspended Westland as a federal food supplier, and it subsequently announced a voluntary Class II recall of all of Westland’s products.  This occurred after a USDA investigation discovered that the supplier’s employees were knowingly using disabled or “downer” cattle that may have been infected with “mad cow” disease.  Windsor recalled all of its own products that had been made with Westland beef, and it incurred $3 million in recall costs in doing so.

The insured had a $4 million Contamination Products Insurance Policy issued by Lloyds.  Windsor sought coverage under two of the policy’s three “Insured Event” definitions – “Accidental Product Contamination” and “Malicious Product Tampering.”  Lloyds denied, and Windsor placed the matter in suit.  The carrier’s motion for summary judgment was subsequently granted by the trial court. Read more ›

About The Author
Tagged with:
Posted in Contamination, Contamination and Product Recall
About The Property Insurance Law Observer

For more than five decades, Cozen O’Connor has represented all types of property insurers in jurisdictions throughout the United States, and it is dedicated to keeping its clients abreast of developments that impact the insurance industry. The Property Insurance Law Observer will survey court decisions, enacted or proposed legislation, and regulatory activities from all 50 states. We will also include commentary on current issues and developing trends of interest to first-party insurers.

Subscribe For Updates

propertyinsurancelawobserver

Archives
Topics
Cozen O’Connor Blogs