PropertyCasualtyFocus

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

Property

Washington Court Finds Coverage For “Collapse” Is Not Set In Stone

August 5, 2016 by Mariko Shitama Outman

As this blog has documented, the language of insurance policies evolves; it changes to address new risks, and it also responds to new interpretations of old policy provisions. Even if a policyholder maintains a long-standing relationship with a single carrier, the availability of coverage might turn on whether the loss occurred in a particular policy term. Property coverage for “collapse” provides an example of this development. After a number of courts found that the ... Keep Reading »

Alabama Puts The Mystery Back Into All-Risk Coverage

June 3, 2016 by John W. Herrington

“There is, one knows not what sweet mystery about this sea …” -- Moby-Dick Insuring property against loss creates an unavoidable moral hazard: policyholders often have an incentive to cause or allow their property to disappear. Early efforts to limit insurers’ exposure to that risk—such as requiring the insured to prove the cause of a loss by “direct and affirmative evidence”—proved unsustainable. Eventually, the problem gave rise to express exclusions for losses ... Keep Reading »

NY Appellate Court Rules “Blanket Ordinance or Law Coverage” not as Blanket as Insured Hoped

May 13, 2016 by John A. Camp

In 1947, some Bedouin shepherd boys were tending their sheep and goats near the ancient settlement of Qumran, near the Dead Sea.  One of the boys threw a rock into an opening on the side of a cliff and heard something break.  Curious, they entered what was a small cave.  Inside, they discovered a large clay vessel that had been broken by the thrown rock.  It contained several scrolls.  This led to the discovery of more clay jars and more scrolls, what would later be come ... Keep Reading »

Grateful Marijuana Grower Scores Coverage Victory in Colorado Federal Court

April 20, 2016 by John C. Pitblado

The refusal of the Senate to fill a Supreme Court vacancy has put gridlock back on the front page, as it leaves important questions about immigration and clean energy unresolved. Uncertainty about federal policy is also affecting other areas of American life, including one of our most popular pastimes. Recently, in The Green Earth Wellness Center, LLC v. Atain Specialty Ins. Co., No. 13-cv-03452-MSK-NYW (D. Colo. Feb. 17, 2016), a federal court in Colorado held that the ... Keep Reading »

Too Little, Too Late: The Harsh Bright Line of Suit Limitation Provisions

February 5, 2016 by Zachary D. Ludens

Approximately twenty percent of Americans have been classified as chronic procrastinators, which means one in five policyholders faces a potential problem when suing for coverage.  While the statute of limitations for breach of contract varies by state, it is typically three years or more.  However, insurance policies often impose their own, contractual suit limitations, and it is often only a year or two.  When and how these provisions operate to bar coverage varies ... Keep Reading »

Coverage for Direct Physical Loss Does Not Necessarily Include “Matching” or Require “Aesthetic Uniformity”

January 29, 2016 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

Picture of Kalman Maklary Fine Arts

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

January 8, 2016 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

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 »

As TCPA Class Actions Soar, Issues Emerge in TCPA Coverage for Claims

December 7, 2015 by Elizabeth M. Bohn and John C. Pitblado

Picture of Postcard for Candlestick Telephones

Both the number of cases under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the types of practices that those cases challenge have mushroomed within the last several years. Yet a dedicated form of insurance against TCPA claims has not yet developed. Instead, businesses seeking defense and indemnification of TCPA suits have resorted to traditional policy provisions dealing with property damage, personal and advertising injury, and (more recently) the language of ... Keep Reading »

Off Schedule: Texas Supreme Court Rules That Ambiguity Produces Blanket Coverage

July 9, 2015 by Meredith Whigham Caiafa

1942 Advertisement by the War Production Board

Owners of multiple commercial properties can significantly reduce their insurance premiums by purchasing a scheduled policy, under which each item of covered property is separately reported (or "scheduled"), and the coverage limit for any one item is determined independently of damage to any other item.  The alternative is a blanket policy, which applies a single coverage limit to the aggregate losses of all the covered properties.  Recently, in RSUI Indem. Co. v. The ... 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 »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 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

  • Florida District Court Orders New Trial After Jury Allowed to Hear Evidence on Claim Handling in Insurance Breach of Contract Claim
  • Sixth Circuit Finds No E&O Coverage for GL Carrier Under E&O Policy for Underlying Motel Claim
  • Connecticut Federal Court Construes Ambiguous Policy Exclusion in Favor of Coverage, but Rejects Bad Faith Claim

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