According to a recent ruling by a New York appellate court, coverage for excavation damage is precluded by the policy’s earth movement exclusion. In 3502 Partners LLC v. Great American Insurance Co. of New York, Case No. 2021-03449 (N.Y. App. 1st Dep’t Apr. 21, 2022), an insured sued its insurer under a first-party policy, alleging in its complaint that its property sustained damage as a direct result of excavation work at an adjacent lot. About The Authors
The Second Circuit has now joined the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that no insurance coverage exists for business interruption losses caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the associated government orders. In 10012 Holdings Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Co. Ltd., No. 21-80-cv, Slip. Op. (2d Cir. Dec. 27, 2021), the insured fine arts gallery and dealership in New York City sought coverage under three provisions of its insurance policy for losses and extra expenses incurred when it suspended its operations in accordance with government restrictions on non-essential businesses during the Covid-19 pandemic. When the insurer denied coverage, the insured filed suit asserting claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. The United States District…
Disputes between the insured and its public adjuster (PA) are frequently contentious and have the unfortunate potential to draw the carrier into litigation. A perfect example is last week’s decision in Public Adj. Bur., Inc. v. Greater N. Y. Mut. Ins. Co., et al., 2015 NY Slip OP 07942, 2015 WL 6510639, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8000 (N.Y.App.Div., Oct. 29, 2015), where New York’s intermediate level appellate court held that the PA was entitled to its fee for performing “valuable services” even though those evidently ceased when suit was filed and it then took an additional ten years of bitter and protracted litigation to bring about a settlement. While not as prolonged and torturous as Dickens’ Jarndyce v. Jarndyce,…
Two weeks ago in Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138609, 2015 WL 5920289 (E.D.Cal., Oct. 9, 2015), a California Court applying New York law found coverage under a product contamination insurance policy for a loss of poultry caused by salmonella. The Court allowed the recovery of decontamination expenses as “accidental contamination,” holding that the policyholder need only prove that there was a “reasonable probability” that consumption of its processed chicken would lead to bodily injury or sickness. In addition, the Court rejected the insurers’ arguments that the undefined term “recall” was only applicable if the loss involved the of destruction of product already in the hands of customers, and it thereby…
Yesterday in El-Ad West LLC v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 2015 WL 4078762, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5753 (N.Y.App.Div., Jul. 7, 2015), a unanimous panel of New York’s intermediate level appellate court held that a flood sub-limit capped all loss caused by flood, without regard to whether it was physical damage to property or a “downstream” financial loss such as delay in completion. In the words of the opinion, reading the contract of insurance in such a way as to find that the flood sub-limit did not apply to delay in completion losses “would render the flood limit meaningless with respect to that coverage.” The panel thereby affirmed a Superstorm Sandy decision that we reported on in July of…
Many property policies expressly define the term “occurrence” to encompass a series of similar and related events. Last month, however, in Rokeach v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2015 WL 2400097, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6580 (May 19, 2015, S.D.N.Y.), a New York federal court held that when the word is employed in the policy’s deductible provision without either emphasis or quotation marks, it is effectively undefined, and the question of whether it should be understood to denote a single occurrence or a series of multiple occurrences must be determined by the jury. The policyholder operated a welding business in Uniondale, and the company stored scrap metal in an ungated yard on the property. As summarized by the court, the undisputed facts were…
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. 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…
Building construction frequently generates silica dust, a substance that can cause lung disease and other respiratory problems. Abrasive sand-blasting or jack hammering as well as concrete drilling and block cutting can lead to its release. In Broome Cty. v. Travelers Indem. Co., – N.Y.S.2d –, 125 A.D.3d 1241, 2015 WL 790256, 2015 N.Y.App.Div. LEXIS 1706 (N.Y.App.Div., Feb. 26, 2015), a unanimous panel from New York’s intermediate level appellate court held that the pollution and faulty workmanship exclusions in a first-party policy barred coverage for the property damage when silica dust spread throughout an office building due to construction activities nearby. The insured was Broome County, the owner of a building in a government complex. During the construction of a parking…
In Platek v. Town of Hamberg, et al., 2015 WL 685726, 2015 N.Y. LEXIS 252 (N.Y., Feb. 19, 2015), the New York Court of Appeals held that an exclusion for water below the surface of the ground was unambiguous and operated to bar coverage when a subsurface water main burst and flooded the insureds’ basement. The policyholders’ attempt to invoke an ensuing loss exception to the exclusion was also rejected in an opinion that surveys the historical genesis of ensuing loss provisions and explains the limited circumstances under which they operate to restore coverage. 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…
On February 5th in a case involving the recall of over $500,000 worth of oyster products made from Korean shellfish, the Southern District of California held: (1) that the policy’s service of suit clause, which gave the insured the choice of forum, trumped a forum selection clause that provided for suit in a New York state court; (2) that California law, as opposed to New York law, applied, and (3) that for purposes of a 12(b)(6) motion, plaintiff’s complaint, which alleged potential contamination, was sufficient to state a claim. The decision is Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2015 WL 728477, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23441 (S.D.Cal., Feb. 5, 2015). The case arose after Tri-Union Seafoods initiated a…
