Administrative regulations enacted pursuant to a state statute often impose strict deadlines by which insurers are required to perform a variety of tasks, including the prompt issuance of a reservations of rights, notification of coverage determinations, and advising of an insured’s right to file a complaint with the state’s insurance department.  Often overlooked is the

On November 6, the Consumer Federation of America sent a letter to elected officials in states affected by Hurricane Sandy in which it suggests that regulators should “block application” of anti-concurrent causation clauses:

A typical anti-concurrent causation (ACC) clause might read, “[w]e will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any

Insurers are starting to deploy adjusters to handle claims from Hurricane Sandy. An article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reports that “Disaster-modeling firm AIR Worldwide estimates the industry’s share of losses at $7 billion to $15 billion. At the high end of that range, Sandy would become the third-most expensive storm for insurers in U.S.

A Florida court of appeal recently held that an insured’s assignment of a claim did not relieve her of the obligation to appear for an examination under oath (EUO). This decision is significant because it makes a distinction between an assignment of proceeds of a property insurance policy and an assignment (or transfer) of the

As insurance companies begin the process of adjusting Hurricane Isaac insurance claims, we thought it would be helpful to highlight briefly on our blog some of the key case law from Hurricane Katrina, and some key Louisiana statutes regarding insurance claim adjustment:

As state legislatures enact statutory amendments, courts are frequently tasked with deciding whether those amendments are to be applied retroactively. In one such case, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida was tasked with deciding whether a 2011 amendment to Florida’s sinkhole insurance statute, Fla. Stat. §627.706(2)(k)(2011) (hereinafter the “Statute”),

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was recently tasked with deciding on summary judgment whether: (1) a rooftop water tank and its supporting steel frame structure “collapsed” due to hidden decay, which would have been a covered cause of loss, or (2) the loss was caused by rust or

The statute of limitations for bringing suit against a property insurer may be far shorter for policies issued after May 17, 2011, under Florida law. As a Florida federal court recently explained in West Palm Gardens Villas Condo Assn v. Aspen Specialty Ins Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104861 (S.D. Fla. June 25, 2012),

For the second time in two months, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was called upon to decide whether or not property damage was covered when the damage resulted from a combination of a covered peril and an excluded peril. Once again, the court upheld the policy’s enforceable anti-concurrent causation language, finding that coverage was precluded.