Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss
May 10, 2013 —
Brady IandiorioTravelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”) recently won a decision against Larimer County regarding a claim for damage caused to the roofs of several buildings at the County Fairgrounds. Travelers Indemnity Company v. Board of County Commissioners for Larimer County, Slip Copy, 2013 WL 238865, p. 1 (10th Cir. 2013). Larimer County alleged, in district court, that snowstorms and the weight of the snow build-up caused damage to the roof structures. Id. After the district court found for Travelers on a motion for summary judgment, Larimer County appealed the ruling, claiming that Traveler’s was obligated under the insurance policy to pay for repair costs to portions of the roofing structure. Id.
The underlying claim for repairs originates with several snowstorms that caused damage to several buildings on the County Fairgrounds. The damage claimed was widespread to the roof structures, evidenced by rolling and buckling purlins (horizontal beams running along the length of the roof, resting upon the principal rafters at right angles and supporting the ordinary rafters). Travelers denied the claim based on its own investigation which concluded the damage was caused by design and construction defects, and therefore excluded from coverage under the insurance policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brady IandiorioMr. Iandiorio can be contacted at
iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com
Questions of Fact Regarding Collapse of Basement Walls Prevent Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment
December 19, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on whether the policy covered the collapse of basement walls based upon factual issues presented. Sirois v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158508 (D. Conn. Sept. 18, 2018).
The insureds' purchased their home in 2010. In December 2015, a crack in the basement wall was noticed. It was not thought to be a serious problem. But in 2016, the insured read an article about defective concrete problems affecting homeowners in Connecticut. An inspector, Dean Soucy, was hired. He found faults and cracks in the foundation walls. Thereafter, a claim was submitted to USAA under homeowners' policies issued over the years to the insureds. USAA denied coverage.
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
Last Parcel of Rancho del Oro Masterplan Purchased by Cornerstone Communties
August 06, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to San Diego Source, “A partnership controlled by Ure Kretowicz's Cornerstone Communities has paid a reported $25 million for a 28-acre residential parcel located on the northwest corner of College Avenue and Old Grove Road in the Rancho del Oro masterplan in Oceanside,” California.
Cornerstone plans to create a “338-unit luxury apartment development,” with amenities including “resort-level clubhouse with an Olympic size swimming pool, spa, barbecue area, conferencing center” and more.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Recognized in 2022 U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms”
November 15, 2021 —
Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman has been listed in the 2022 U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms”. The firm has been named as Metropolitan Tier 2 in St. Petersburg, FL for Appellate Practice and as Metropolitan Tier 2 in West Palm Beach, FL for Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants.
The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. Please
click here to learn more about the methodology for selection.
Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court
April 03, 2019 —
Graham C. Mills - Newmeyer & DillionA recent decision issued by the Iowa Supreme Court, City of West Liberty, Iowa v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, highlights the importance for a policyholder to investigate a loss fully so that a wide range of evidence can be gathered and presented to show why there is coverage. The facts of City of West Liberty are a little unusual, but its lesson is not limited to Iowa insurance law; the issues litigated in this case show the value of investigating what caused a loss regardless of whether the loss occurred in California, Iowa, or elsewhere.
Background on the Case
City of West Liberty involved an insurance coverage dispute between a municipality owned electrical power plant and its insurance company. The dispute arose from a single adventurous squirrel who climbed onto an outdoor electrical transformer, touching two different parts of the power plant: a portion of the steel frame and a bare cable clamp. In doing so, the squirrel created a “conductive path,” in the words of the Iowa Supreme Court, between the high voltage clamp and the grounded frame. The path, once created, caused significant damage to the transformer and other electrical equipment at the city’s power plant.
The city submitted a claim for the resulting damage, but the insurance company denied it. The insurer denied based on an exclusion in the insurance policy for property damage “caused by arcing or by electrical currents other than lightning.” According to the insurance company, the squirrel had no role in causing the damage; all of the damage resulted from arcing, which was excluded from coverage. The ensuing lawsuit focused upon whether the squirrel had a role in causing the damage. If yes, then there would be coverage according to Iowa insurance law; when a loss results from two causes, one of which is covered and the other is not, then there is coverage if the loss occurs from the covered cause. Due to this legal standard, the city contended that, apart from the arcing causing any damage, the squirrel caused the damage too. Because the insurance policy provided protection against mischievous actions performed by squirrels, the city contended that it was entitled to coverage, even if the excluded arcing contributed to the same damage too. Unfortunately, for the city, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding instead that the property damage resulted only from the arcing, which was excluded from coverage. In reaching its conclusion, the court absolved the squirrel of any wrongdoing, finding that it did not cause any of the property damage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Graham C. Mills, Newmeyer & DillionMr. Mills may be contacted at
graham.mills@ndlf.com
Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims
February 10, 2020 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPIs an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action.
In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses.
The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085).
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jury Finds Broker Liable for Policyholder’s Insufficient Business Interruption Limits
January 06, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogAfter a four-day trial, an Arizona federal jury found that Western Truck Insurance Services, Inc., an insurance broker, was negligent in selling Madison Alley Transportation and Logistics Inc. a business interruption policy with inadequate annual limits. Based on its finding of negligence, the jury determined that the broker was liable for $685,000 of $1,000,000 in damages suffered by Madison Alley as a result of a flood in its warehouse. The verdict and Complaint, filed in Arizona state court before the case was removed, can be found here and here.
In June 2016, a subtenant in Madison Alley’s warehouse broke a sprinkler line while operating a forklift, causing the warehouse to flood. The warehouse was used to store and deliver retail display goods, and Madison Alley was unable to do business during the five months of repairs.
Madison Alley sought coverage under a business interruption policy it had purchased through Western Truck, but the policy’s $20,000 limit was not enough to cover its approximately $1,480,000 in losses.
Madison Alley sought coverage under a business interruption policy it had purchased through Western Truck, but the policy’s $20,000 limit was not enough to cover its approximately $1,480,000 in losses.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations
August 24, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Andrews KurthOn August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Civ. Case No. 2020 CA 002424 B, a District of Columbia trial court found in favor of an insurer on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy.
At its core, the decision ignores key arguments raised in the summary judgment briefing and is narrowly premised on certain dictionary definitions of the terms, “direct,” “physical,” and “loss.” Relying almost entirely on those definitions – each supplied by the insureds in their opening brief – the court set the stage for its ultimate conclusion by finding “direct” to mean “without intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate”; and “physical” to mean “of or pertaining to matter ….” The court then apparently accepted the policy’s circular definition of “loss” as meaning “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.” Importantly, however, despite recognizing the fundamental rule of insurance policy construction that the court “must interpret the contract ‘as a whole, giving reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all its terms, and ascertaining the meaning in light of all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made,’” the court apparently ignored the insureds’ argument that the term “property damage” is specifically defined in the policy to include “loss of use” without any specific reference to physical or tangible damage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
