Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery
November 27, 2023 —
Michael S. Levine, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Charlotte Leszinske - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogTimely notice is an important first step in a successful insurance recovery. But insurance policies are not always straightforward in identifying how, when, and to whom notice must be provided. Some states may also impose additional procedural hurdles, including requiring policyholders to contact their insurers before filing suit (the idea behind this requirement is that it may avoid litigation). Failing to comply with pre-suit requirements can hurt the policyholder’s recovery, as illustrated in a recent decision from the Northern District of Texas.
In NewcrestImage Holdings, LLC v. The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company, No. 2:23-cv-039-BR (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2023), the court considered whether NewcrestImage had forfeited its right to recover attorneys’ fees by failing to give Travelers pre-suit notice. NewcrestImage had filed suit against Travelers to obtain coverage for damage to its hotel property arising out of Winter Storm Uri. In its answer, Travelers asserted that NewcrestImage failed to provide the insurer with pre-suit notice as required under the Texas Insurance Code, and that if NewcrestImage successfully proved it was entitled to coverage, NewcrestImage’s failure to provide pre-suit notice precluded it from recovering attorneys’ fees. Travelers later moved to strike the claim for attorneys’ fees on that basis.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals’ Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases
May 20, 2015 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationOn May 7th, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its much anticipated ruling in Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al., 2015COA65 (Colo. App. May 7, 2015). By way of background, the Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominiums were developed by Metro Inverness, LLC, which also served as the declarant for its homeowners association. Metropolitan Homes was Metro Inverness’ manager and the general contractor on the project. Greg Krause and Peter Kudla served as declarant-appointed members of the Association’s board during the period of declarant control.
When it set up the Association, Metro Inverness included within the Association’s declaration a mandatory arbitration provision specifically for construction defect claims. This provision stated that it “shall not ever be amended without the written consent of Declarant and without regard to whether Declarant owns any portion of the Real Estate at the time of the amendment.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation
August 10, 2020 —
Robert S. Nobel - Traub LiebermanOn July 27, 2020, in the case of Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. AKI Renovations Group, Inc., (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2020), Index No. 159421/2017 (unpublished), the trial court issued an Order granting summary judgment permitting rescission of a CGL policy based upon material misrepresentations in a policy application. The insured submitted an application in which it failed to disclose its demolition operations despite specific questions seeking this information. Mt. Hawley issued a primary and excess policy for the period of December 29, 2016 to December 29, 2017 (collectively, the policy).
Subsequently, the insured sought coverage for a claim in which it was alleged that the insured was acting as a general contractor for demolition of a three-story building when the plaintiff was injured. The insurer advised the defendants that it was rescinding the policy ab initio, and also returned defendants’ premium in its entirety. The insurer asserted that it would not have issued the policy had defendants disclosed their demolition operations, then filed the coverage action seeking a judicial declaration ratifying its rescission of the policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert S. Nobel, Traub LiebermanMr. Nobel may be contacted at
rnobel@tlsslaw.com
TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida
November 18, 2019 —
Burks A. Smith, III & Kathryn Keller - Traub LiebermanOn July 9, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP Partner, Burks A. Smith, III and Associate, Kathryn A. Keller, secured Summary Judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. See Lehrfield v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2019 WL2994270 (S.D. Fla. 2019). The underlying claim involved a water loss at the Plaintiffs’ residence allegedly resulting in $91,147.32 worth of damage to their home. The claim was reported eight (8) months after the alleged date of loss, and during the inspection, the adjuster observed rot, decay, mold, and warping wood, prompting the carrier to deny the claim based on the Seepage Endorsement. The Plaintiffs filed a breach of contract action alleging that the insurer breached the Policy by denying the claim.
Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that Plaintiffs’ Policy with the insurer imposes a duty on the Plaintiffs to comply with the Duties After Loss conditions of the Policy, including the requirement to provide prompt notice of the loss and show the damaged property. As mentioned above, the Plaintiffs provided notice of the claim eight (8) months late, and performed various repairs prior to notifying the insurer of the claim. After the close of discovery, Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the insurer based on the late reporting, and further argued that the Plaintiffs had the burden of proving direct physical loss to property within the first 13 days of the loss, given the recent decision of Hicks v. American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida, 241 So.3d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1018). In Florida, when an insured fails to comply with their Duties After Loss, a presumption of prejudice to the insurer arises. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So. 2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 1985)). In order to recover, the Plaintiffs bear the burden of overcoming the presumption, and must prove that no prejudice existed. Id. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller’s comprehensive arguments successfully proved to the Court that the Plaintiffs’ failure to timely report the claim prejudiced the insurer by prohibiting the insurer from being able to independently validate the loss, or distinguish between multiple causes of loss. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller further argued that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove that the insurer was not prejudiced by the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Duties After Loss provision of the Policy. The Motion cited numerous cases and extensive analysis supporting the insurer’s position.
Reprinted courtesy of
Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and
Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Smith, may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Living With a Millennial. Or Grandma.
July 23, 2014 —
Zara Kessler – BloombergIt turns out millennials really do live in their parents’ houses -- at least according to a Pew Research Center report out today.
Almost 57 million people in the U.S. -- 18.1 percent of the population -- lived in a multigenerational household in 2012, including almost one in four 25- to 34-year-olds. This provides needed context to the "millennials living in the basement" phenomenon, and, well, stereotype.
Of course, "multigenerational household" is not synonymous with "millennial living in the basement." Pew's definition of the former term is more expansive than the one used by the U.S. Census Bureau (whose data Pew analyzes in the report). There's more detail in the report, but here’s the Sparknotes version:
A multi-generational household is a household that includes at least two adult generations (for example, parents and adult children ages 25 or older where either generation can be the household head) or two non-sequential generations (for example, grandparents and grandchildren of any age).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zara Kessler, BloombergMs. Kessler may be contacted at
zkessler@bloomberg.net
Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured
April 19, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiIn a dispute between two insurers, the Ninth Circuit relied upon Nevada law in finding that the burden of proving that an exception to the exclusion applies was on the insured. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1626 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2022).
Ironshore insured seven subcontractors. The policy included an exclusion providing there was no coverage for any property damage for the subcontractors' for "work performed prior to the policy inception." An exception to the exclusion provided that the exclusion did not apply to property damage that was "sudden and accidental and takes place within the policy period."
The seven subcontractors were sued for work they had performed. Zurich defended and indemnified the subcontractors. Zurich then sued Ironshore seeking contribution and indemnification for defense and settlement costs. The parties stipulated that all construction work at issue had been completed before the inception of Ironshore's policy and that none of the complaints against the subcontractors alleged that sudden and accidental damage had occurred after the inception of Ironshore's policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Ritzy NYC Tower Developer Says Residents’ Lawsuit ‘Ill-Advised’
January 17, 2022 —
Chris Dolmetsch - BloombergThe developers of a Manhattan skyscraper that has become one of New York City’s toniest residences said the condo board is trying to squeeze money out of them with a lawsuit that claims bogus design flaws.
The board is seeking $250 million from builders of the 1,396-foot residential tower at 432 Park Avenue that opened in 2015 on the so-called Billionaire’s Row. Their suit alleges the company that developers CIM Group and Macklowe Properties formed to build the structure failed to take into account its unusual height, leading to flooding, noise, vibrations and elevators that are prone to malfunctions.
In a response to the suit filed Wednesday, the company called the building “a treasure” and the suit was “ill-advised.” While the structure needed to be “fine-tuned” when residents started to move in, the board stopped the builders from accessing the facilities and finishing the job “while manufacturing an ever-increasing list of demands,” most of which were not required, according to court filings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg
Massachusetts Business Court Addresses Defense Cost Allocation and Non-Cumulation Provisions in Long-Tail Context
March 06, 2022 —
Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and WilliamsA business court in Massachusetts has weighed in on two key issues affecting allocation of insurance coverage for long-tail liabilities in Massachusetts. Specifically, in Crosby Valve LLC et al. v. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, et al.,
[1] involving asbestos bodily injury claims, Judge Kenneth Salinger of the Suffolk County Business Litigation Session addressed:
- whether defense costs in long-tail cases were subject to the same pro rata allocation scheme the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) adopted to govern successively triggered insurers' indemnity obligations in Boston Gas Company v. Century Indemnity Company;[2] and
- whether “non-cumulation” provisions, like those addressed by the New York Court of Appeals in Matter of Viking Pump,[3] were consistent with this pro rata allocation methodology.
As to the first issue — i.e., allocation of defense costs — Judge Salinger declined to follow Boston Gas, and found the SJC’s holding in that case was limited to an insurers’ indemnity obligations. The SJC in Boston Gas had focused on the language of the policy insuring agreement, saying “[t]his policy applies to ... property damage ... which occurs anywhere during the policy period.” The SJC had also pointed to the policy definition of “occurrence” as “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.”
[4]
Reprinted courtesy of
Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams LLP and
Austin D. Moody, White and Williams
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
