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 the recent decision Marquez v. Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company, No. 6:23-cv-2025-ACC-DCI, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219390 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2024), the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the insurer’s motion in limine and excluded evidence and testimony regarding replacement cost value of damages, matching, and to limit damages to direct physical loss. About The Author
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 MAve Hotel Investors LLC d/b/a The MAve Hotel, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al., 2024 WL 2830909, (S.D.N.Y. 2024), to preserve diversity jurisdiction, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York permitted a plaintiff insured to drop non-diverse, dispensable defendant Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Underwriters”) which subscribed to a commercial property insurance policy. About The Authors
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…
A federal court recently held that an insurer may deny coverage under a homeowner’s policy for a “residence premises” when the insured never actually lived at the premises. In Sina Davani v. Travelers Personal Insurance Company and Geico Insurance Agency, LLC, Case No. 22-1244 (D. Kan. October 26, 2023), the District of Kansas granted defendant-insurer’s motion for summary judgment holding that the plaintiff-insured never resided at the insured premises and residence in the context of an insurance contract requires an insured’s physical presence at a certain location and an intent to remain at the location for an indefinite period of time. About The Author
For the fourth time since 2019, the Florida Legislature has enacted property insurance reforms aimed towards stabilizing a beleaguered insurance market. The bill, S.B. 2-A, creates a reinsurance assistance program, establishes additional oversight for insurers with high volumes of hurricane claims, and reforms many aspects of the claims process, including the timing for paying and adjusting claims. The reforms further eliminate one-way attorney fee awards to policyholders and ban assignment-of-benefits agreements. In this article, we will focus on the changes to the claim adjustment process and coverage and bad faith litigation. About The Authors
