Employee theft claims are frequently problematic when the only evidence of shortage is a comparison between computer records and a physical inventory conducted after the malefactor has been discharged. In W.L. Petrey Wholesale Co. v. Great American Ins. Co., 2015 WL 404523, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10943 (N.D.Ala., Jan. 30, 2015), an Alabama federal court recently granted summary judgment to the carrier where the contract of insurance barred employee dishonesty claims based solely on “inventory computation” and such a comparison was the policyholder’s only evidence of the loss.
Petrey was a wholesale distributor of goods supplied to convenience stores, one of which was a two ounce “energy shot” drink called “5-Hour Energy.” It hired salespeople for delivery routes, and each of them leased a Petrey storage unit. The salespeople ordered inventory from Petrey’s warehouse, and the insured then delivered the goods to the storage unit for distribution.
Justin Bree was a Petrey salesperson for six years before being terminated, and the insured made claim under its business income and crime prevention policy when a post-termination inventory showed a shortage of 82,510 bottles of 5-Hour Energy valued at $111,415.35. The policy covered employee dishonesty, defined as “loss of, and loss from the damage to . . . property resulting directly from dishonest acts committed by an employee, whether identified or not, acting alone or in collusion with other persons[.]” There was also an exclusion for loss “the proof of which as to its existence or amount is dependent upon . . . an inventory computation; or . . . a profit and loss computation,” however, and Great American denied because the claim was based solely on a comparison between Petrey’s computer-generated inventory records and the physical inventory of Bree’s storage unit that was conducted after he was let go. Litigation followed. Read more ›
The policyholder made claim after the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems in five townhouses at its Creek’s Edge at Stoney Point Townhomes complex in Richmond broke down due to off-gassing from the drywall. Its property insurance carrier, Nationwide Mutual, responded by filing a declaratory judgment action asking the court to hold that it had no obligation to cover the claims. Stony Point conceded that it had no coverage under the main body of the contract of insurance in the wake of Travco, but it contended that the damage to the HVAC units was covered by an Additional Coverage for “Equipment Breakdown.” This recited that Nationwide “will pay for loss caused by or resulting from an ‘accident’ to ‘covered equipment.’ “ The provision also afforded coverage for “the additional cost to repair or replace Covered Property because of contamination by a ‘hazardous substance.’ “ 
In 
Maria Nucci filed a personal injury action against Target, alleging that she fell on “a foreign substance” on the floor of one of the defendant’s stores. Her complaint contended that she sustained permanent injuries, aggravated pre-existing ones, and also experienced lost earnings and emotional pain and suffering. Prior to her deposition, Target’s attorneys reviewed her Facebook profile and found that it contained 1,285 photographs. She was questioned about some of them at the deposition itself, and she promptly took three dozen of the pictures down.
The policyholders owned a gas station and convenience store in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The structure experienced moderate damage during a storm on August 14, 2011. Two weeks later on August 28th, the rear portion of the building collapsed during Hurricane Irene. There was a 72” corrugated metal culvert running underground near the rear of the structure, and this was corroded and decayed. Experts for both sides agreed that the deteriorated culvert sustained damage during the first storm and then partially collapsed after Irene, leading to extensive soil erosion; when the insurer’s expert examined the property two days after the storm, there was a hole 60’ long, 20’ wide, and 8’ deep behind the building.
(1) A man who fell asleep during Red Sox game at Yankee Stadium filed a lawsuit against ESPN and its announcers as well as Major League Baseball and the Yankees after he was shown napping on a live telecast of the game. According to his complaint, he suffered “substantial injury” to his “character and reputation” and “mental anguish, loss of future income and loss of earning capacity” as a result of the incident. His complaint seeks $10 million in damages.
Congress has a bad habit of larding important legislation like TRIA with wholly-unrelated provisions, and it was one of those that doomed reauthorization. When the Senate wrote its own reauthorization bill earlier this year, it proposed including a provision creating the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers (NARAB), a non-profit clearinghouse made up of state insurance commissioners and insurance market representatives which would oversee and streamline the licensing of agents and brokers. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) was opposed, believing that to be a federal infringement on authority traditionally reserved for the individual states, and the Senate bill that was sent to the House on July 17th sunset NARAB after two years.
The House of Representatives’ Financial Services Committee sent a reauthorization bill to the House floor on June 20th, but it was never voted on by the full chamber. It had been passed out of the committee on a partisan 32-27 vote, and its sponsors evidently felt that it reduced the federal government’s backstop role too drastically to have any chance of passing the Senate. The upper chamber then passed a reauthorization bill of its own on July 17th by a 93-4 vote and sent it to the House, but it languished there until recently as TRIA’s expiration date grew ever closer.
Alfredo Mejia owned a home that was insured by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, and he made a claim for damage, contending that it was caused by sinkhole activity. The insurer retained BCI, an engineering firm, and it denied liability after BCI concluded that the damage was not caused by a sinkhole. A breach of contract action followed.