Blog Archives

Florida Begins New Era with Major Property Insurance Reforms

Posted on December 16, 2022 by John David Dickenson, Chad A. Pasternack

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

Tagged with: 624.1551, 626.9373, 626.9541, 627.428, 627.70131, 627.70132, adjustment, attorney's fees, Bad Faith, Florida, H.B. 1-A, notice, property insurance, reform, S.B. 2-A
Posted in Uncategorized

Ninth Circuit Finds that “Subsidence Exclusion” Bars Coverage for Landslide Loss

Posted on March 29, 2022 by Dina R. Richman

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an unpublished opinion in Atain Specialty Insurance Company v. JKT Associates, Inc., Case No. 20-16366 (9th Cir., March 11, 2022), finding that a liability policy’s “Subsidence Exclusion” barred coverage for a lawsuit arising out of a landslide. About The Author

Tagged with: earth movement, landslides, liability insurance, property insurance, subsidence
Posted in Uncategorized

Renewal of Property Policy Requires Living Insured

Posted on March 23, 2022 by Elliot Kerzner, Alycen A. Moss

A policy renewal requires a living insured to form a valid insurance contract, the Sixth Circuit recently ruled. In Boby Davis, et al. v. Westfield Ins. Co., Case No. 21-2797 (6th Cir. Mar. 14, 2022), Della Shields received a yearly homeowner’s insurance policy covering her home in Muskegon, Michigan from 2013 until her death in March 2018. Shields was the sole named insured in the yearly policy declarations. About The Authors

Tagged with: boby davis, death, estate, fire, insurance contract, loss, property insurance, renewal, shields, void, westfield
Posted in Uncategorized

When Better Late Than Never Isn’t Good Enough: Florida Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment For Insurer In Late-Reported Hurricane Claim

Posted on September 30, 2021 by Alexandra Schultz

On September 27, 2021, Judge Jose Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of Scottsdale Insurance Company in LMP Holdings Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., case no. 20-24099. The case arose out of a Hurricane Irma claim reported more than two years after the storm. The insured, LMP Holdings, Inc., owned a commercial property located in Miami. The insured claimed the property sustained damage from Hurricane Irma, which struck South Florida on September 10, 2017. The insured’s handyman and one of the insured’s officers inspected the property the day after the storm. The handyman noticed punctures on the roof, which he patched, and a panel from one of the air…

Policyholder Permitted to Videotape Appraisal

Posted on July 30, 2021 by Maria Louise (Ria) Cousineau

In Silversmith v State Farm Insurance Company, 2021 W.L. 2910240 (Fla. 4th DCA July 7, 2021), Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that policyholders may openly videotape an inspection by the insurance company appraiser, despite the state’s “two-party consent law.” The court held that an appraiser has “no legitimate expectation of privacy while in the insured’s home for the inspection.” Silversmith v State Farm, 2021 WL 291040, p.1. The facts revealed that the insurer invoked the appraisal clause on a property loss, and the policyholder sought to videotape the appraisal. The insurer’s appraiser objected on privacy grounds. The policyholder filed an action seeking permission to videotape the appraisal of her home, and the trial court refused. Relying on Section…

Tagged with: appraisal, home inspection, property insurance, videotape
Posted in Arbitration and Appraisal

Wind Before Storm May Blow Away Flood Exclusions

Posted on July 21, 2021 by Elliot Kerzner, Alycen A. Moss

Flood exclusions may not apply when floods are preceded by winds strong enough to independently cause the loss, according to a recent decision issued by the Western District of Louisiana. In Doxey v. Aegis Security Ins. Co., No. 2:21-CV-00825, 2021 WL 2383834 (W.D. La. Jun. 10, 2021), an insured sought coverage for wind damage sustained to his home by Hurricane Laura under a property insurance policy that excluded coverage for damage “caused by, contributed to or aggravated by” flooding. The policy also contained an anti-concurrent causation clause, which excluded losses caused by excluded perils “regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.” The insurer denied coverage under the flood exclusion on the…

Appraisal Process Tolls Contractual Suit Limitation Period Even For Non-Covered Claims

Posted on June 28, 2021 by Alycen A. Moss, Elliot Kerzner

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that, under Georgia law, an appraisal process tolled a commercial property policy’s two-year contractual suit limitation period even for non-covered claims. In Omni Health Solutions, LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 19-12406, 2021 WL 2025146 (11th Cir. May 21, 2021) (unpublished), the insured filed a property insurance claim with its insurer, reporting hail damage to the roof of its medical facility in Macon, Georgia, and water intrusion. The policy required the insurer to give notice of its intentions with respect to a claim within 30 days of receiving a sworn proof of loss. Following a protracted appraisal process, the insured sued the insurer in Georgia superior court for breach of contract…

Elaborate Jewelry Heist Results in No Coverage for Jewelry Store’s Loss Under Dishonest Entrustment Exclusion

Posted on May 24, 2021 by Alycen A. Moss, Connor Rowinski

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York has provided some clarity to New York businesses and their insurers dealing with loss resulting from fraudulent entrustment. In Crown Jewels Estate Jewelry, Inc. v. Underwriters At Interest At Lloyd’s London, Case No. 2020-04312 (N.Y. App. Div. May 13, 2021), the court held that coverage under a dishonest entrustment exclusion was properly denied where an individual fraudulently convinced a high end jewelry store to let him borrow five pieces of jewelry. In a Scorsese-like plot, Paul Castellana, the plaintiff, emailed Crown Jewels Estate Jewelry, a high-end jeweler, saying he worked for Sony Pictures International and asked to borrow jewelry for a video he said he was shooting with Jennifer Lopez. After…

Southern District of New York Holds Contamination Exclusion is Ambiguous as Applied to Covid-19 Business Losses

Posted on April 16, 2021 by Paul Ferland, Elliot Kerzner

The Southern District of New York recently held that a contamination exclusion was ambiguous in the context of Covid-19-related business interruption losses. Accordingly, the court held that the issue was inappropriate to decide at the summary judgment stage and denied both parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. In Thor Equities LLC v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-03380 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021), an insured commercial property owner sought business interruption coverage under its property insurance policy. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to determine the applicability of two exclusions, one of which was a contamination exclusion. The exclusion excluded “contamination, and any cost due to contamination including the inability to use or occupy property or any…

A Consequential Ruling: Florida Supreme Court Rejects Recovery of Consequential Damages in First-Party Breach of Contract Actions

Posted on January 22, 2021 by John David Dickenson, Chad A. Pasternack, Alexandra Schultz

In first-party breach of insurance contract actions, the parties oftentimes dispute whether the policyholder may seek damages that are not explicitly provided for in the policy, with the policyholder arguing such indirect damages flow from the alleged breach of contract. By doing so, policyholders blur the lines between breach of contract actions and bad faith actions. The Florida Supreme Court recently considered this issue in Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Manor House, LLC,[1] and held that “extra-contractual, consequential damages are not available in a first-party breach of insurance contract action because the contractual amount due to the insured is the amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the insurance policy.” Manor House arose from a Hurricane Frances…

Tagged with: Bad Faith, consequential, damages, extra-contractual, first party, Florida, Manor House, property insurance, Supreme Court
Posted in Hurricane