In May, we reported on a Third Circuit decision holding that loss reserve information was generally irrelevant and not discoverable. In October, a federal court in Indiana came to the same conclusion with respect to post-suit reserves. In G & S Metal Consultants, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., 2014 WL 5431223, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151431 (N.D.Ind., Oct. 24, 2014), the court agreed that reserves established after litigation were irrelevant because of the multiplicity of factors that were necessarily considered in establishing them. The opinion suggests that pre-suit reserves are discoverable unless they have been set in anticipation of litigation and consultation with counsel, however.
G & S Metal Consultants filed suit for property damage and business interruption loss after a steam explosion at a Georgia facility. After discovery was complete, the insurer, Continental Casualty, successfully sought permission to file an amended answer asserting additional affirmative defenses and a counterclaim based on alleged misconduct by G & S during the claim adjustment process that it had allegedly learned of during discovery, and the court reopened discovery to allow the policyholder to defend against the counterclaim. The insured then sought to question the carrier’s 30(b)(6) designee about reserves, and it filed a motion to compel after Continental’s attorneys objected to that line of questioning.
On October 24th, the court denied the motion. Judge Paul R. Cherry’s opinion distinguished between loss reserves set during the claim adjustment process and loss reserves set during litigation. With respect to the latter, he held that such information was essentially irrelevant because there were simply too many factors involved in the carrier’s decisions. As he explained: Read more ›
The Strausses had constructed a home in Mequon, Wisconsin in 1994, and they were insured by four separate Chubb carriers from then until October of 2005. In October of 2010, Mr. and Mrs. Strauss discovered that a defect during construction in 1994 had been allowing water infiltration during every rainstorm over the past 16 years, causing damage to the building’s envelope. They made claim under the 1994-2005 Chubb policies, but the insurers denied liability, and the Strausses brought suit in federal court in October of 2011, within one year of their discovery of the damage.
Plaintiff Wakefern was a buying cooperative consisting of the owners of ShopRite and PriceRite supermarkets, and it had a commercial property policy issued by Lexington Insurance Company. After Superstorm Sandy struck on October 29, 2012, Wakefern made claim for over $50 million in damage at dozens of different locations.
Jane Street Holding, LLC was a trading company with offices in One New York Plaza in lower Manhattan. On September 2, 2011, it purchased a commercial property policy from Aspen American Insurance Company for the 2011-2012 policy year. Jane Street subsequently bought a $2.2 million generator and installed it in the basement of One New York Plaza. The policy was renewed “as expiring” on September 2, 2012, and the generator was totally destroyed when Superstorm Sandy struck on October 29, 2012 and flooded Lower Manhattan.
Justin and Brandy Porter owned a home that was damaged when raw sewage entered the premises on November 14, 2009. Their homeowners carrier was Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, and the insurer denied. Litigation followed. After the district court granted Oklahoma Farm Bureau’s motion to dismiss and the state’s intermediate level appellate panel affirmed, the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted the Porters’ writ of certiorari.
The Frys owned a home in Fleetwood, Pennsylvania. The house was a wood-frame structure with a stone veneer, and they noticed that the veneer was bulging in 2003. An engineering report that they commissioned at the time attributed the problem to “an insufficient number of veneer wall ties and fasteners,” and the Frys paid $22,000 to have the exterior wall repaired.
The Brancos’ home was damaged by a sinkhole in April of 2010, and they made claim under a homeowner’s policy issued by Homewise Preferred Insurance Company. The insurer denied liability, asserting that what had happened did not qualify as a “sinkhole loss” as defined, and the Brancos brought suit. Homewise was subsequently declared insolvent, and Mr. and Mrs. Branco filed an amended complaint substituting the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association as defendant.
The case involved sinkhole damage to a piece of property owned by Cannon Ranch Partners, Inc. The property was insured by Cincinnati Insurance Company, and the contract of insurance included coverage for sinkholes. The dispute involved the necessary scope of repair. Cincinnati’s two consultants determined that grouting was all that was needed to restore the structure to its pre-sinkhole state, but Cannon Ranch’s consultant opined that underpinning was also needed, and the policyholder entered into a contract to have that done. Cincinnati refused to sign off on the work, however, and it made a demand for appraisal instead.
The case arose after the Office of Thrift Supervision closed Vantus Bank and appointed the FDIC as its receiver. The FDIC then filed suit against the bank’s former officers and directors, alleging gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duties. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, which had issued a D&O policy to the bank, responded by filing a declaratory judgment action of its own, asserting that there was no coverage for the FDIC’s claims under its contract of insurance.
The Curries were the owners of a home in Langhorne, Pennsylvania. When Superstorm Sandy struck on October 29, 2012, the structure took a direct hit from a tree on the property. The insurer, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, conducted an inspection and then tendered its repair estimate to the policyholders together with a check for $56,940.54 – the actual cash value of the estimate less the policy’s deductible. The Curries responded by submitting their own repair estimate in the amount of $363,804.98. State Farm then conducted a new inspection and made a supplemental payment of $9,502.09.