PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for Damage/Loss

Damage/Loss

Eleventh Circuit Explicitly Adopts Distinction Following Hoover to Confirm That Coverage Cannot Be Created Through Waiver or Estoppel

August 12, 2020 by Amanda Proctor

Moving van parked outside an apartment complex

On July 30, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in AEGIS Electric & Gas International Services Ltd. v. ECI Management LLC reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurer, AEGIS Electric & Gas International Services Ltd. In that case, AEGIS issued a real estate services professional liability policy to ECI Management LLC. Subsequently, ECI was named as a defendant in a putative class action in which the plaintiff alleged that ... Keep Reading »

DC Court Finds No Coverage for COVID-19 Losses Where Plaintiffs Could Not Show That Property Sustained Direct Physical Loss

August 7, 2020 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

Man hanging a sign on a restaurant door that says, "Closed due to Coronavirus"

For going on five months, the United States has been dealing with the difficult impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted daily lives and sometimes devastated businesses. In looking for sources of economic recovery, businesses want to turn to their commercial property policies, but, as this blog has explained, these policies are unlikely to provide the coverage business owners seek because there must first be "direct physical loss of or damage" to the insured ... Keep Reading »

Years of Embezzlement Precluded From Coverage Under E&O Policy’s Commingling Exclusion

May 15, 2020 by Kelley Godfrey

A federal district court in North Dakota recently granted an insurer’s motion to dismiss in Campbell Property Management LLC v. Lloyd’s Syndicate 3624, finding that both prongs of a “commingling exclusion” to coverage applied. The court granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract and bad faith claims asserted by Campbell Property Management, finding that there was no coverage for the subject acts, and thus there could be no bad faith. Lloyd’s issued ... Keep Reading »

Eleventh Circuit Weighs in on Allocated Verdict Form Procedure

May 8, 2020 by J. Kent Crocker

The Eleventh Circuit, in the matter of QBE Specialty Insurance Co. v. Scrap Inc., affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of QBE holding that there was no indemnity coverage for an underlying judgment where a non-allocated verdict form was used because the insured could not meet its burden of allocating between coverage and uncovered damages. Background QBE Specialty Insurance Co. issued a general commercial liability (GCL) ... 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 »

Flooded: Court Finds “Named Windstorm” Coverage, and Not Flood Sublimit, Applies to Superstorm Sandy Water Damage Claim

February 28, 2020 by Daniel G. Enriquez

When the National Weather Service names a storm heading in your direction, you know to expect wind and water. This can create a quandary for property insurers. Is water damage from a named windstorm caused by the flood or the storm? This distinction can mean millions. In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, a three-judge panel from the Superior Court of New Jersey held that the New Jersey Transit Corp. was entitled to $400 million in ... Keep Reading »

Florida Court Holds Carrier’s Basis for Botched $149K Ferrari Payment Defied “Common Sense”

February 17, 2020 by Carlton Fields

A familiar dispute between a carrier and a third party involves the third party’s attacking the language of the insurance contract and arguing in favor of an interpretation not reflected by the plain meaning of the text. But in a recent opinion by a Florida appellate court, World Finance Group LLC v. Progressive Select Insurance Co., it was the third-party lienholder that benefitted from the “plain meaning” of the text. This case stemmed from a March 2014 accident ... Keep Reading »

Look No Further Than the Insuring Clause: Ill-Gotten Gains Do Not Constitute Covered “Loss”

November 15, 2019 by Amanda Proctor

FBI Investigator

On August 26, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Florida Law, held that ill-gotten gains do not constitute covered “loss” within the meaning of a D&O policy. In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Sabal Insurance Group, Inc., No. 17-14844 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2019), the Miami-Dade County Office of the Inspector General investigated Sabal Insurance Group and its CEO/president Ian Norris for overcharging the Miami-Dade Aviation Department for ... Keep Reading »

Appraise Away Says Florida’s Fifth DCA

September 24, 2019 by Andrew Daechsel

Tug of war with rope with a stack of coins on top

Many homeowners insurance policies allow the insurer or the insured to invoke appraisal to resolve disagreements about the amount of the loss. Nonetheless, when one party invokes appraisal, the other party will sometimes refuse to participate in the process, forcing the party invoking appraisal to obtain a court order compelling the other party to participate. Fortunately, the recent decision in Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, ICAT Syndicate 4242 v. Sorgenfrei, No. ... Keep Reading »

New York State Court Affirms All-Sums Allocation Method

June 28, 2019 by Rachel Schwartz

Danger: Asbestos Hazard

A New York state court explored the proper allocation method for insurance policies with non-cumulation clauses covering asbestos exposure loss occurring over the course of multiple successive policy periods in In re Liquidation of Midland Insurance Co. At issue were four excess policies issued by Midland to ASARCO LLC, which, through one of its subsidiaries, engaged in the selling of asbestos products. A series of asbestos claims against ASACRO ensued, and ASARCO sought ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • Next Page »
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