In Banta Properties, Inc. v. Arch Specialty, Ins. Co., —Fed. Appx.— , 2014 WL 274478 (11th Cir., January 24, 2014), the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a property manager’s insurable interest in the apartment complexes that it managed was limited to the income that it was entitled to receive under its contracts with the buildings’ owners. Under Florida statutes, the measure of insurable interest is the loss that the policyholder might sustain from damage to the property, and that was held to preclude the property manager from asserting such an interest and recovering on its own behalf for the property damage that the apartments sustained from Hurricane Wilma.
In October of 2005, Hurricane Wilma damaged three apartment complexes in Broward County, Florida. The property manager for all three was Banta Properties, Inc., a company owned by various Banta family members. The individual family members also owned two of the three properties at the time of the storm, having sold the third one (Parkcrest Apartments) to an unrelated, non-party entity two months beforehand.
Banta Properties was the named insured under a primary, $2.5 million commercial property policy from General Star Insurance Company. The defendant, Arch Specialty, provided $8.5 million in excess property coverage, and both carriers’ contracts of insurance listed the three complexes as additional named insureds. Read more ›
The Preislers owned a dairy farm with cattle, and they used a well to stock a pool on the property. For several years, they had defendant Kuettel’s Septic spray several thousand gallons of septage on their farmland. Kuettel’s Septic was in the business of removing, hauling, storing and disposing of the substance, which comes from septic tanks, grease traps, floor pits, and car washes. It is disposed of by either taking it to a treatment facility or by spreading it on farmland as a fertilizer. It contains high levels of nitrogen.
Of course, when we’re dealing with commercial construction and property insurance, the most significant incentive for “going green” is probably economic. Over time, green buildings can reduce operating costs, improve employee productivity and satisfaction (a happy employee is a productive employee!), enhance asset value and profits, generate a better return on the owner’s investment (e.g., higher rents, sales prices and occupancy rates), reduce liability risks, and optimize the performance of a building during its life-cycle. There are also federal, state or local tax incentives for certain types of green construction.
On November 27, 2013, an intermediate level Texas court handed down an opinion addressing the extent to which a policyholder’s claims for a covered loss survive foreclosure. Peacock Hospitality, Inc. v. Association Casualty Ins. Co., 2013 WL 6188597 (Tex.App. San Antonio) arose after the policyholder Peacock Hospitality (“Peacock”) made claim against its property insurance carrier, Association Casualty Insurance Company (“Association Casualty”), for water damage from frozen pipes at a Holiday Inn. The loss occurred on January 9, 2010.
Adams v. Cameron Mutual Ins. Co., 2013 Ark. 475 (Ark., Nov. 21, 2013) arose after a tornado damaged the Adamses’ home in Mena, Arkansas. Their homeowners insurance carrier, Cameron Mutual Insurance Company, depreciated the entire repair estimate including the labor-only services such as the removal of roof decking, siding, and carpet and vinyl flooring. The policyholders asserted that the contract of insurance did not allow for such depreciation, and they brought a would-be class action against the insurer in the Western District of Arkansas. The federal court then certified the following question to Arkansas’ Supreme Court:
The question came to the forefront in Juan Pinzon and Jaqueline Espitia v. The First Liberty Ins. Corp., 2013 WL 5487027 (M.D.Fla., Sept. 30, 2013), a breach of contract action under a homeowners insurance policy. The insureds contended that their property had suffered damages from sinkhole activity, but First Liberty denied the claim after securing a professional engineer’s report that concluded that “none of the damage at the Pinzon & Espitia residence are [sic] structural damage as defined by the Florida Statutes.” A lawsuit followed. After removal, First Liberty filed for summary judgment and requested that the court apply the narrow five-part definition of “structural damage” adopted in 2011 to the insureds’ claim.