In Bob Robison Commercial Flooring Inc. v. RLI Insurance Company (2025 WL 852889 (8th Cir. 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit determined that an ensuing loss provision of a builder’s risk insurance policy did not restore coverage resulting from defective workmanship where the insured failed to identify a separate covered peril. About The Authors
In Ram Krishana Inc. d/b/a Motel 6 Sulphur v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. (2025 WL 371016) (S.D.N.Y. 2025)), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that the plaintiff lacked an insurable interest in property it insured because it did not own or possess the property or suffer economic loss due to the property’s destruction. Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to indemnity for damage to the property it purported to insure under a commercial property insurance policy.[1] About The Author
In Jackson v. Spinnaker Insurance Company, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania considered a homeowners insurance coverage dispute, ultimately finding that questions of residency and alleged fraudulent misrepresentations precluded summary judgment. However, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer on the bad faith claim, emphasizing that a thorough investigation into a questionable claim does not amount to bad faith About The Author
In AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that a loose bolt or fitting that could be remedied simply by tightening it did not constitute “direct physical loss of or damage” to equipment covered under an all-risk property insurance policy.[1] About The Author
In J&S Welding, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the U.S. Court of Appeals reviewed a summary judgment ruling in favor of co-defendant West American Insurance Company (“West American”), issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The 6th Circuit held that the property policy’s cosmetic damage exclusion applied to bar coverage because the insured, J&S Welding, Inc. (“Insured”), failed to disclose or produce any expert evidence to rebut the conclusions of the West American’s three experts, who determined the roof’s damage was merely cosmetic. About The Authors
In Life Skills, Inc. v. Harleysville Insurance Company, 2024 WL 3792261 (D. Mass. 2024), the District Court of Massachusetts found that “collapse” provisions within a commercial property policy were ambiguous where a floor merely sagged without completely falling to the ground. About The Authors
In Zurich American Insurance Company v. Medical Properties Trust, Inc., 2024 WL 3504060 (Mass. Jul. 23, 2024), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the term “surface waters,” as used in a limitation contained in commercial property insurance policies, was ambiguous in the context of rainwater accumulating on roofs, thereby finding coverage for the insured. About The Author
In BCC Partners, LLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of America, 2024 WL 1050117 (E.D. Mo. March 11, 2024), the Court determined that the plaintiff property owner, as an additional insured, was not entitled to the same insurance coverage as the named insured where the builder’s risk policy limited the scope of recovery for soft costs and rental income. About The Author
A federal court recently held that an insurer could not deny coverage under a homeowner’s policy based upon the failure of the named insured’s son, an “insured person,” to submit to an examination under oath (“EUO”). In Michelle Adeola v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-4643 (E.D. PA February 16, 2023), the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied defendant-insurer’s motion for reconsideration of the lower court’s denial of its motion for judgment on the pleadings, and held that the defendant-insured did not present any errors of law or fact, or new evidence, or a change in controlling law that would preclude coverage based upon the named insured’s son’s failure to submit to an EUO. Specifically, the Court…
In Mankoff v. Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange (2024 WL 322297 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 29, 2024)), the Court determined that the term “windstorm” was ambiguous as utilized in the subject insurance policy. About The Authors
