PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for ACV/Replacement Cost

Actual Cash Value/Replacement Cost

South Carolina Supreme Court Authorizes Homeowner’s Insurers to Estimate Depreciation of “Embedded Labor Components” in Calculation of Actual Cash Value

July 20, 2021 by J. Kent Crocker

The South Carolina Supreme Court, in the matter of Butler v. Travelers Home & Marine Insurance Co., held that when an insurer is determining actual cash value (ACV) under a homeowners insurance policy, the insurer can depreciate the cost of labor that includes both materials and embedded labor components. The case concerns two separate matters that were filed in a single action in federal district court involving fire damage to the homes of plaintiffs Miriam ... Keep Reading »

Ransomware Attack Replacement Costs Are Covered “Direct Physical Loss or Damage” Under Standard Business Owner’s Policy, According to Maryland Federal Court

March 6, 2020 by Alex B. Silverman

A Maryland federal court recently weighed in on the still-murky world of insurance coverage for cybersecurity losses, finding replacement costs necessitated by a ransomware attack were “direct physical loss or damage” to a computer system within the meaning of a business owner’s policy. Even as insurers continue efforts to develop cyber insurance products, National Ink demonstrates potential exposure to carriers under existing non-cyber ... Keep Reading »

Tennessee Supreme Court Holds That Replacement Cost Less Depreciation Does Not Allow for Depreciation of Labor When Calculating Actual Cash Value of a Property Loss

May 2, 2019 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

Insurance policies are designed to indemnify an insured by putting the policyholder in the same position he or she would have been in had no loss occurred. In the context of property insurance policies, damaged property is typically valued based on its estimated actual cash value (ACV) if it is not repaired or replaced. In order to calculate ACV, an insurer will often calculate the replacement cost (RCV) based on the cost to repair or replace the property with materials ... Keep Reading »

Oregon Supreme Court Revives Century-Old Statute to Award Attorney’s Fees to Policyholder

May 5, 2017 by Jason Morris

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 »

In Overhead and Profit Class Actions, The Third Trade’s No Longer The Charm

July 1, 2015 by Farrokh Jhabvala and Robert D. Helfand

Picture of the Three Stooges

When repairs to a damaged home reach a certain level of complexity, they call for supervision by a general contractor, who receives a percentage of the actual repair costs as "general contractor's overhead and profit" or "GCOP."  Under "replacement cost" policies, insurers must pay GCOP for appropriate claims, even if the insured chooses not to use a contractor or elects not to make repairs.  In the past, this obligation has been the subject of class action suits, in ... Keep Reading »

Property Insurance Law 101 – A Primer from Texas

September 15, 2014 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

Picture of a Mother reading to her Child

On the Fourth of July in 2011, a fire damaged a nightclub in Beaumont, Texas.  The fire was not unusual, but the lawsuits it generated—O’Quinn v. General Star Indemnity Company, No. 1:13-CV-471 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2014), and Debes v. General Star Indemnity Company, No. 09-12-00527 (Tex. Ct. App. July 10, 2014)—review many of the ABCs of property insurance law in the Lone Star State. Everybody Goes to Alibi’s Alibi’s, a nightclub and restaurant, was open nightly from ... Keep Reading »

Louisiana’s Direct Action Statute Does Not Modify Terms of Coverage

August 5, 2014 by Nicholas Horan

Picture of Jail Cells

"Direct action" statutes permit an injured plaintiff to sue an insurer for coverage under someone else’s policy—the liability insurance policy of the tortfeasor who caused the injury.  They have been enacted in only a minority of states, because they abrogate the common law, which bars suits by plaintiffs who are not in privity with the insurer.  Louisiana’s statute, which dates from 1918, was one of the earliest.  It expresses the long-held policy of the Bayou State ... Keep Reading »

Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle
  • Eighth Circuit Finds No Coverage Under “Ensuing Loss” Provision Under Arkansas Law

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing