In this age of exponentially increasing technology, we can rely on one certainty in property casualty jurisprudence – that is, bold policyholder assertions supported by even bolder “expert” opinions. In BF Advance, LLC v. Sentinel Insurance Company, No. 16-cv-5931 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2018), decided in New York federal court this past March, the policyholder argued that a CGL policy’s Software Exclusion does not apply to injuries caused by software, and hired an insurance ... Keep Reading »
Opening the Pandora’s Box of Flood Policies, or How Filing Suit Against Flood Insurers Can Effectively Reduce the Suit Limitations Period
When is an insurer’s “Rejection of Proof of Loss” letter for flood insurance damage, which states on its face that it “is not a denial of your claim,” nevertheless a written denial of claim? According to the Third Circuit in Migliaro v. Fidelity National Indemnity Ins. Co., No. 17-1434 (3d Cir. Jan. 29, 2018), the answer is whenever “the policyholder treats it as such by filing suit against the carrier.” If a flood policyholder treats a proof of loss rejection as a claim ... Keep Reading »
Washington Federal Court Rejects Policyholder’s “Separate Claim” Argument
In April, a federal district court in the Western District of Washington issued a decision in National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Zillow, Inc. While at first blush, it may seem only of interest to those who work with media policies, this decision has potential broader application. In short, the decision rejects the argument that a demand letter and subsequent litigation based on the facts asserted in the demand letter are separate claims and thus should be treated as ... Keep Reading »
Oregon Supreme Court Revives Century-Old Statute to Award Attorney’s Fees to Policyholder
The general rule regarding a party’s responsibility for legal fees in U.S. courts, known as the “American Rule,” provides that, barring a contrary contractual obligation or statute, each party is responsible for its own legal fees, regardless of a dispute’s outcome. Although statutory exceptions to this rule are many, the overwhelming majority of those exceptions require that the person receiving a fee award at least be the prevailing party. Not so in Oregon — or at ... Keep Reading »