Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer
October 12, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesProperty insurance policies (first party insurance policies) contain post-loss obligations that an insured must (and should) comply with otherwise they risk forfeiting insurance coverage. One post-loss obligation is the insurer’s right to request the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss. Not complying with a post-loss obligation such as submitting a sworn proof of loss can lead to unnecessary headaches for the insured. Most of the times the headache can be avoided. Even with a sworn proof of loss, there is a way to disclaim the finality of damages and amounts included by couching information as estimates or by affirming that the final and complete loss is still unknown while you work with an adjuster to quantify the loss. The point is, ignoring the obligation altogether will result in a headache that you will have to deal with down the road because the property insurer will use it against you and is a headache that is easily avoidable. And, it will result in an added burden to you, as the insured, to demonstrate the failure to comply did not actually cause any prejudice to the insurer.
By way of example, in Prem v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2044a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the insured notified their property insurer of a plumbing leak in the bathroom. The insurer requested for the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss per the terms of the insured’s property insurance policy. The insurer follow-up with its request for a sworn proof of loss on a few occasions. None was provided and the insured filed a lawsuit without ever furnishing a sworn proof of loss. The insurer moved for summary judgment due the insured’s failure to comply with the post-loss obligations, specifically by not submitting a sworn proof of loss, and the trial court granted the insurer’s motion. Even at the time of the summary judgment hearing, the insured still did not submit a sworn proof of loss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases
August 19, 2015 —
Sean Mahoney – White and Williams LLPIn Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit.
In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLPMr. Mahoney may be contacted at
mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com
Los Angeles Delays ‘Mansion Tax’ Spending Amid Legal Fight
April 25, 2023 —
Laura Curtis - BloombergLos Angeles plans to hold off spending most of the money collected from a voter-approved “mansion tax” until legal challenges against the initiative are resolved.
Mayor Karen Bass revealed in her 2023-24 budget plans that the city intends to allocate just $150 million of the funds raised by Proposition ULA, a ballot initiative that took effect this month to fund the construction of more affordable housing.
The decision will prevent the city from taking a loss if a lawsuit succeeds in reversing the tax, according to budget documents released this week. The city anticipates it would qualify for $150 million in federal reimbursements to make up the amount.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Curtis, Bloomberg
Concerns Over Unstable Tappan Zee Bridge Push Back Opening of New NY Bridge's Second Span
October 02, 2018 —
The New York Daily News - Engineering News-RecordSept. 08 --Big bridge, big scissors, big problems.
A day after an elaborate ribbon-cutting ceremony, the grand opening of the second span of the new Gov. Mario M. Cuomo bridge was postponed over concerns that the remains of the "destabilized" and "dangerous" Tappan Zee Bridge could collapse.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall
October 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFAlthough Virginia isn't in the Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, some Virginia homeowners ended up with a case there. And now the court has to decide whether Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. can be sued in American courts for defects in its products. The case made its way to Louisiana after the courts consolidated cases from across the country. If the court decides that the homeowners can’t sue, they could appeal to the Supreme Court, although that’s likely a longshot. Or, the homeowners could sue in the Chinese courts, also not likely.
More than 300 homes in Virginia are affected by fumes from the Chinese-made drywall, but only seven residents in the town of Hampton Roads are at the heart of the current case. They were chosen as representative of the entire group. Those seven have been collectively awarded $2.6 million, but the drywall manufacturer is appealing the judgement. If Taishan is victorious, then the damages already awarded will be overturned and there won’t be an option for the others.
The drywall emitted gases which corroded metals in the homes. One couple, Steve and Liz Heischober went through seven air conditioning coils in three years, along with problems with corrosion of appliances and electrical systems. If the current suit succeeds, the Heischobers, and the other, will be compensated for their damages, including the costs of repair and relocation. If Taishan loses, they could be responsible for about $1 billion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Washington Supreme Court Finds Agent’s Representations in Certificate of Insurance Bind Insurance Company to Additional Insured Coverage
February 03, 2020 —
Jason Taylor - Traub LiebermanIn T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 450 P.3d 150 (Wash. 2019) the Washington Supreme Court addressed whether an insurance company is bound by its agent’s written representation—made in a certificate of insurance—that a particular corporation is an additional insured under a given policy. The question arose in a case where: (1) the Ninth Circuit had already ruled that the agent acted with apparent authority, but (2) the agent’s representation turned out to be inconsistent with the policy and (3) the certificate of insurance included additional text broadly disclaiming the certificate’s ability to “amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by” the policy. According to the Court, under Washington law the answer is yes: an insurance company is bound by the representation of its agent in those circumstances. Otherwise, the Court reasoned, an insurance company’s representations would be meaningless and it could mislead without consequence.
At the heart of this case were two T-Mobiles entities: T-Mobile USA and T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”), which were distinct legal entities. T-Mobile NE engaged a contractor to construct a cell phone tower on a rooftop in New York City. The contract between T-Mobile NE and the contractor required the contractor to obtain a general liability insurance policy, to annually provide T-Mobile NE “with certificates of insurance evidencing [that policy’s] coverage,” and to name T-Mobile NE as an additional insured under the policy. T-Mobile USA was not a party to the contract, but was nonetheless aware of it and approved the contract as to form.
The contractor obtained the required insurance policy from Selective. The policy provided that a third party would automatically become an “additional insured” under the policy if the contractor and the third party entered into their own contract that required the contractor to add the third party to its insurance policy as an additional insured. Because T-Mobile USA did not have a contract with the contractor, it did not automatically become an additional insured under the policy. Nevertheless, over the course of several years, Selective’s agent issued a series of certificates of insurance to “T-Mobile USA Inc., its Subsidiaries and Affiliates” that stated that those entities were “included as an additional insured [under the policy] with respect to” certain areas of coverage. The agent signed those certificates as Selective’s “Authorized Representative.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E
September 17, 2014 —
Mark Chediak – BloombergA deadly pipeline explosion that shattered a California town four years ago continues to rip through the state agency weighing a record penalty for the disaster.
The president of the California Public Utilities Commission asked his chief of staff to resign and recused himself from the case after “inappropriate e-mail exchanges” with PG&E Corp. (PCG) raised questions about bias, according to a statement from the commission yesterday. The CPUC may decide within weeks whether to levy a proposed $1.4 billion penalty -- the biggest safety fine in the state’s history -- against PG&E for the 2010 explosion of a natural gas pipeline that killed eight people in San Bruno.
Commission President Michael Peevey, who has been accused by San Bruno officials and consumer advocates of being too close to the utility, said in the statement he would not take part in penalty deliberations to eliminate any appearance of impropriety. The move is a step toward regaining credibility for the CPUC after two years of political infighting has created an ongoing climate of scandal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Chediak, BloombergMr. Chediak may be contacted at
mchediak@bloomberg.net
State of Texas’ Claims Time Barred by 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act
June 13, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided the case of State of Texas v. U.S., et al. The Court of Appeals held that the petition for mandamus filed by the State of Texas essentially seeking to compel the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to establish a schedule for the operation of the Yucca Mountain, NV nuclear waste depository was untimely filed. The depository is very controversial in Nevada, and as a consequence, none of the many deadlines established by Congress have been met.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
