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.
The 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 ›
The 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.
Oklahoma 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.
Effective 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 
The 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.
Eight 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.
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.
On 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 
The insured was Broome County, the owner of a building in a government complex. During the construction of a parking garage below the structure, silica dust migrated up an elevator shaft and disbursed throughout all floors of the building. It was undisputed that inadequate dust barriers were what allowed the silica to infiltrate the shaft – it was “a flawed process on the part of the contractors that led to the loss at issue.” Broome County made claim for the resulting property damage, but its insurer, Travelers Indemnity, denied the claim, invoking the two exclusions discussed above.
The insureds, Frederick and Mary Platek, owned a home in Hamberg, New York. On September 7, 2010, a subsurface water main abutting their property ruptured, flooding the house’s finished basement and causing $110,000 in damages. The Platek’s insurance claim was denied by Allstate, their homeowner’s insurer, because the policy contained an exclusion reciting that Allstate “does not cover loss to the property . . . consisting of or caused by . . . 4. Water . . . on or below the surface of the ground, regardless of its source[, including] water . . . which exerts pressure on, or flows, seeps or leaks through any part of the residents premises.”