The Second Department, Appellate Division, for the Supreme Court of New York, recently held in a matter of first impression, that an insurance company with a duty to defend may not recover defense costs after a determination that no duty to indemnify or further defend exists—even though the insurer expressly reserved its right to recoup such defense costs—unless the policy explicitly provides for such recovery. See American W. Home Ins. Co. v. Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Co., 2018-03435, 2020 WL 7767944 (2d Dept., Dec. 30, 2020). In the underlying personal injury action, commenced in January 201 ..read more

The legal media have been inundated with articles by lawyers who represent policyholders and insurance companies discussing business interruption claims arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of this discussion has carried over into the mainstream media, including a recent Wall Street Journal article. Much of the discussion focuses on two issues. First, property insurance policies require “direct physical loss or damage” to property (either to the insured property, or non-insured property within a certain distance of the insured property for a coverage called “civil authority”). A virus has ..read more

One practice that has plagued the insurance industry in recent years has been contractors soliciting homeowners to make insurance claims after a hailstorm, for example, and then obtaining an assignment of rights to the claim and pursuing litigation against the insurer. The Iowa Supreme Court recently ruled that a contractor’s attempt to obtain such an assignment of rights was void because the contractor was acting as an unlicensed public adjuster, in violation of state law. The line of argument made here may be useful to insurers in other jurisdictions faced with abusive practices by contracto ..read more

Although we cover a wide variety of topics and issues on this blog, one issue that recurs with some frequency is the appropriate application of suit limitation provisions that are found in most property policies. The latest case to confirm that suit limitation provisions are valid and enforceable, and to highlight the peril an insured may encounter by not recognizing or addressing those provisions during the course of a claim, is Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Aspen Spec. Ins. Co., et al., 2019 WL 2417704 (D.N.J. June 10, 2019). That case involved a dispute between Consolidated Rail Corporation, o ..read more

A new law represents a major step forward to remedy Florida’s assignment of benefits (“AOB”) crisis, which Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has described as a “racket” in recent years. On Thursday May 23, 2019, Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 7065, which addresses the abuse of post-loss AOBs for residential and commercial property insurance claims, by (among other things): Defining “assignment agreement” and establishing requirements for the execution, validity, and effect of such an agreement; Transferring certain pre-suit duties under the policy to the assignee and shifting the burden to th ..read more

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a case arising from Superstorm Sandy based on unambiguous policy language providing a significantly lower limit of liability for losses resulting from flood damage. In New York University v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45105 (S.D.N.Y. March 19, 2019), the court agreed with Factory Mutual (FM) that the policy’s $250 million and $40 million sublimits for flood damages applied to New York University’s (NYU) claim, rather than the policy’s $1.8 ..read more

In a recent decision arising out of Superstorm Sandy, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey confirmed the enforceability of anti-concurrent causation provisions.  Zero Barnegat Bay, LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 14-cv-1716, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43625 (D.N.J. Mar. 18, 2019). In Barnegat Bay, the insured sought coverage for damages suffered as a result of Superstorm Sandy.  Lexington inspected the property and concluded that high winds caused damage to roof shingles, windows, ceilings and walls.  Lexington determined that the damage amounted to $17,344.79 – an amount ..read more