Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal recently affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of a property insurer, holding that there is no conflict between the policy’s three year limitation for reporting hurricane claims and the requirement that the insured give prompt notice. In Navarro v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No. 3D22-0032, 2023 WL 219032, — So.3d —- (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 18, 2023), the insured sought coverage for Hurricane Irma damage nearly three years after the storm. The court found that the policy unambiguously required prompt notice, and that the insured failed to ..read more

For the fourth time since 2019, the Florida Legislature has enacted property insurance reforms aimed towards stabilizing a beleaguered insurance market. The bill, S.B. 2-A, creates a reinsurance assistance program, establishes additional oversight for insurers with high volumes of hurricane claims, and reforms many aspects of the claims process, including the timing for paying and adjusting claims. The reforms further eliminate one-way attorney fee awards to policyholders and ban assignment-of-benefits agreements.  In this article, we will focus on the changes to the claim adjustment proc ..read more

The First Court of Appeals in Houston affirmed an analysis that involved math and application of the Texas Insurance Code.  In Jones v. Allstate Vehicle & Property Insurance Company, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 8896 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 6, 2022, no pet.), the policyholder appealed a take-nothing judgment in favor of the insurer in a dispute over a partial denial of a homeowners claim.  The policyholder sued her insurer for breach of contract, violation of the Texas Insurance Code, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.  At trial, the jury found that t ..read more

There is a clear nationwide trend of federal courts disposing of COVID-19 business interruption suits.[1]  Insureds are not clearing their initial burden to establish direct physical loss or damage to property, or they are running afoul of virus and contamination exclusions.  Relatively few state supreme courts, however, have weighed in to resolve the issue, thereby providing guidance to their own lower courts and federal courts that must follow state law.[2]  Insurers and insureds alike have been watching to see which way the Oklahoma Supreme Court would hold.  In Cherokee ..read more

There is a clear nationwide trend of federal courts disposing of COVID-19 business interruption suits.[1]  Insureds are not clearing their initial burden to establish direct physical loss or damage to property, or they are running afoul of virus and contamination exclusions.  Relatively few state supreme courts, however, have weighed in to resolve the issue, thereby providing guidance to their own lower courts and federal courts that must follow state law.[2]  Insurers and insureds alike have been watching to see which way the Oklahoma Supreme Court would hold.  In Cherokee ..read more

Ever since the Texas Supreme Court changed the landscape of Texas law regarding appraisal in Barbara Technologies Corp. v. State Farm Lloyds, 589 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. 2019) and Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds, 589 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2019), practitioners and courts have been struggling to apply the Texas Supreme Court’s holdings.  Barbara Technologies and Ortiz answered some questions but raised others.  One question resulting from Barbara Technologies and Ortiz is: Does the payment of an appraisal award plus the estimated interest due under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (“TPPCA”) entit ..read more

On July 20, 2022, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a trial court’s decision compelling the parties to proceed with appraisal and staying litigation until that appraisal was completed. Florida’s appellate court held that trial court erred in granting the motion to compel appraisal without first conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine compliance with post loss obligations. This case began when policyholders, Nolan and Maria Santee, notified their homeowner policy insurer, that their home sustained interior and roof damage during a storm on June 14, 2019. Auto ..read more

The Tenth Circuit recently held that, under Kansas law, an intentional loss exclusion precludes coverage for damage caused by an intentionally set fire even if the actual resulting damage is unintended. In Taylor et al. v. LM Insurance Corp., Case No. 20-3166 (10th Cir. Jul. 11, 2022), the named insureds’ 18-year-old daughter (who was also an “insured” under the policy) was home alone and used a lighter to ignite her father’s side of her parents’ bedspread, intending to “make him mad.” Though she intended to, and believed she had, put out the fire, the fire spread and caused damage to the insu ..read more

On June 28, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision finding Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) breached its policy with homeowner Cynthia Franklin. Franklin’s home has sustained damage in a May 2016 storm for which she submitted a claim with Lexington. Lexington utilizes a two-step adjusting process in which it first determines the ACV of a covered loss and issues an ACV payment. Then, if an insured requests additional reimbursement for repair and replacement costs over the amount previously paid, Lexington assesses the appropriateness of payment. In processing Fra ..read more

A recent New Jersey Appellate Division ruling follows the general trend nationally in which courts are, by and large, rejecting insureds’ claims for coverage for business income losses due to government orders related to preventing the spread of Covid-19.  While there have been certain outliers, like the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s deeply divided plurality decision earlier this month in Cajun Conti LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, et al., the overwhelming majority of courts have ruled in favor of insurers.  Specifically, courts have consistently recogniz ..read more