It’s said that “defeat is an orphan,” but insurable losses often have multiple, concurrent causes. In some cases, one or more of those causes might be outside the scope of coverage, either by omission or exclusion. In Sebo v. American Home Assurance Company, No. SC14-897 (Fla. Dec. 1, 2016), the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that if damage results from “concurrent causes” and, as between the concurrent causes, an “efficient proximate cause” cannot be determined, it is ... Keep Reading »
Postdiluvian Perils: Second Circuit Weighs Coverage For Losses Suffered After The Waters Recede
“[N]ow I only hear/ Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,/ Retreating, to the breath/ Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear/ And naked shingles of the world.” — Matthew Arnold As this blog has reported, exclusions and limits for flood coverage have generally held up against the tide of claims arising from Superstorm Sandy. Now that the water is gone, however, new losses have been discovered, and new challenges arise. Last month, in National Railroad ... Keep Reading »
In Indiana, an Absolute Pollution Exclusion May Exclude Absolutely Nothing
A recent article in the Sports section of The Miami Herald read "Shooting coach helps Winslow." Perhaps, but it probably didn't help the coach much. The admonition to "eat every carrot and pea on your plate" undoubtedly elicits laughs from the children to whom it is directed. The point is, some things are unambiguously ambiguous. Others are not. Consider these basic principles of Indiana contract interpretation: Limitations on coverage in insurance policies must ... Keep Reading »
Third Circuit Slams The Door On Coverage For The Cost of Defending Excluded Claims—Then Leaves It Wide Open
An insured corporation settles a class action, and a portion of the settlement pays the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Payments to the class are excluded from coverage under the terms of the corporation’s liability policy. But can the company still get coverage for the attorneys’ fees? In April, this blog discussed a case in which the answer turned on the nature of the company’s underlying conduct. The following month, in PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. v. Houston Casualty ... Keep Reading »
Coverage for Direct Physical Loss Does Not Necessarily Include “Matching” or Require “Aesthetic Uniformity”
When a property insurance policy covers a multi-story building or multi-building property, and a portion sustains damage, there is often a question regarding the extent to which undamaged property should be replaced to ensure matching and/or aesthetic uniformity throughout the property. In Great American Insurance Company of New York v. The Towers of Quayside No. 4 Condominium Association, 15-CV-20056 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2015), a District Court recently determined that ... Keep Reading »
Arkansas Court Finds Extension of Coverage for Contingent Time Element includes Contingent Extra Expense
All risk insurance policies typically provide coverage for loss of or damage to the insured property unless otherwise excluded. Coverage is provided for physical damage, as well as resulting business interruption losses. Such policies sometimes also include coverage for loss resulting from damage to property that wholly or partially prevents a supplier from providing goods to the insured. This coverage is referred to as Contingent Time Element coverage. In Lion Oil ... Keep Reading »
The Eleventh Circuit Holds that for Sinkhole Losses, Structural Damage ≠ Any Damage to a Structure
The land in Florida is prone to sinking and insurance companies must often scramble for solid footing on which to anchor the scope of coverage for sinkhole losses. In Hegel v. First Liberty Insurance Corporation (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit provided some much needed guidance when it held that the plain meaning of "structural damage" in a homeowners policy cannot be simply "damage to the structure" in the context of determining coverage for a sinkhole ... Keep Reading »
Insurance is Big in Texas: In Deepwater Horizon Case, Texas Stretches a Policy’s Four Corners to Include Other Contracts
Last month, in In re Deepwater Horizon, Relator, the Supreme Court of Texas applied a fundamental principle of insurance law to a case with enormous financial implications. The owner of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig had made BP an additional insured under its liability policies, but it did so pursuant to a drilling contract in which BP had agreed to be responsible for some of the losses those policies covered. When BP submitted a claim, therefore, a court had to ... Keep Reading »
No Manifestation Destiny: The Seventh Circuit Declines to Set a Standard Trigger Rule for First-Party Property Policies
When I ... feel my finger on your trigger, I know no one can do me no harm." - John Lennon Property damage can be sudden and dramatic, but it can also be subtle and insidious, and that can make it hard to identify the moment when properly coverage is implicated. As a result, courts have recognized several different "triggers," depending on the circumstances of the loss and the type of coverage involved. In November 2014, in Strauss v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance ... Keep Reading »
“Voluntary” ≠ “Obligatory”: Good Deeds Do Not Trigger Coverage
Liability policies typically provide coverage for amounts the insured "become[s] legally obligated to pay"—but they leave open the question of how that obligation should be determined. Judgments and settlements clearly create "legal obligations." Sometimes, a statute can, too: several courts require insurers to pay for remediation efforts mandated by environmental laws, even if government authorities have not yet ordered any action at the polluted site. But the ... Keep Reading »