Jenna Veronneau

Subscribe to Jenna Veronneau's Posts

A federal court in New Jersey recently dismissed state law claims brought by third party plaintiffs, including the insured’s broker, against a Write Your Own insurance carrier. The claims at issue in Residences at Bay Point Condo. Ass’n v. Chernoff Diamond & Co., LLC, Civil Action No. 16-5190, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56451 (D.N.J. Apr. 13, 2017) arose out of damage sustained to a condominium complex during Storm Sandy. The insured, and later its broker, claimed that Standard Fire had failed to advise that the National Flood Insurance Policy had been written on the wrong form. After the loss, Standard Fire reformed the policy and applied a co-insurance penalty.

Moving to dismiss the third party state law claims against it, Standard Fire argued that such claims were preempted by federal law. The court agreed, turning first to the Standard Flood Insurance Policy (“SFIP”) provision regarding jurisdiction, which states that “all disputes arising from the handling of any claim under the policy” are governed by FEMA regulations, the National Flood Insurance Act, and Federal common law. Noting that federal courts have previously distinguished between claims sounding in policy procurement, which are not preempted, and claims sounding in handling, which are preempted, the court found the broker’s claims to be grounded in policy handling. Central to this determination was the status of the insured’s coverage at the time of the interaction with the Standard Fire. The condo complex’s claims, and consequently the third-party broker’s claims, arose while the condo complex was insured by Standard Fire, leading the court to conclude that the claims related to handling.
Continue Reading District of New Jersey Dismisses Third Party Claims Sounding in Policy Handling on Preemption Grounds

We have previously featured New Jersey District Court decisions addressing “unequivocal” denials in the context of policies’ suit limitation provisions. In the latest, Ryan v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 14-6308 (WHW)(CLW), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6716, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2017), the Court found Liberty Mutual’s letter explaining both covered and excluded damages to constitute a “clear and unequivocal” denial.

In Ryan, the day after their home was damaged by Hurricane Sandy, the Ryans notified Liberty Mutual of a claim for the damage.  Liberty Mutual sent an independent adjuster to the property and determined that it owed the Ryans $4,784.14 for covered damages. Liberty Mutual explained the payment of policy benefits in a November 30, 2012 letter, which the Ryans received on December 10, 2012. The letter explained that Liberty Mutual would not be issuing payment for damage to a living room wall because the Ryans had been paid for damage to the wall after a previous storm, and the inspection showed that they had not repaired the damage. The letter also stated that no coverage was available for flood-related damages. 
Continue Reading Unequivocal Denial: District of New Jersey Court Outlines What is Not Necessary

In Johnson v. Omega Ins. Co., 2016 Fla. LEXIS 2148 (Sept. 29, 2016), the Florida Supreme Court determined that the 5th DCA misapplied and misinterpreted two statutes, the first providing a presumption of correctness to the initial report of an engineer retained by an insurer to investigate a sinkhole claim, and the second providing for the award of attorney’s fees to the insured upon prevailing in litigation.

In Omega, Kathy Johnson’s homeowner’s policy included statutorily mandated sinkhole coverage. In 2010, she filed a claim with Omega to recover for damages she believed were due to sinkhole activity.  In accordance with the statutory framework commonly known as the “sinkhole statutes,” Omega selected an engineer to provide an initial sinkhole investigation. That investigation revealed no sinkhole activity, and Omega denied Johnson’s claim. Under Fla. Stat. § 627.7073(1)(c), the engineer’s findings and recommendations are afforded a statutory presumption of correctness.
Continue Reading Florida Sinkhole Statute and Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees Without Bad Faith: Florida Supreme Court Reverses the 5th DCA and Reiterates Prior Holdings