Stephen Clancy is an attorney in Robinson+Cole’s Litigation Section and a member of the firm’s Insurance + Reinsurance Group. He focuses his practice on insurance coverage litigation, professional liability defense, commercial litigation, and products liability. He is also experienced in representing insurers in complex litigation involving allegations of bad faith and unfair claim settlement practices.
Prior to joining Robinson+Cole, Stephen was an associate at Morrison Mahoney LLP and a judicial clerk for the Honorable Barry R. Schaller of the Connecticut Appellate Court in Hartford, Connecticut.
In Tripodi v. Universal North America Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181807 (D.N.J., December 31, 2013), The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted an insured’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that damage to the insured’s basement wall fell within the policy’s definition of “collapse,” because it constituted “an … Continue Reading
In Georgitsi Realty, LLC v. Penn-Star Ins. Co., 2013 N.Y. LEXIS 2857 (N.Y. App. Ct., October 17, 2013), Georgitsi Realty, LLC owned a four-story apartment building which it insured pursuant to a “named perils” policy issued by the defendant, Penn-Star Insurance Company. The policy provided coverage against “direct physical loss or damage . . . … Continue Reading
In Quaker Hills, LLC v. Pacific Indemnity Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18040 (2d. Cir., August 29, 2013), the insured Quaker Hills LLC (“Quaker Hills”) owned real property on which its principal built a home in or about 2005. From 2005 through 2009, the home was insured via a series of fire insurance policies issued … Continue Reading
One significant problem that can arise in the underwriting of property insurance policies is that the location intended to be insured is not correctly identified in the policy documents. In a recent summary judgment decision, a Louisiana federal court concluded that a policy which unambiguously listed the insured premises as one address could not be … Continue Reading
In Chow v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 2013 Mass. App. LEXIS 84 (Mass. App. Ct. May 15, 2013), the insured purchased a house to serve as living quarters for employees of his restaurant. The restaurant’s general manager also resided at the house and served as a caretaker. Eventually, the restaurant closed and the employees moved … Continue Reading
A Florida federal court recently ruled that third-party beneficiaries under an insurance contract were not entitled to attorney fees under Fla. Stat. § 627.428 where they were not named in the insurance contract. In Conyers et al. v. Balboa Insurance Company, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42340 (M.D. Fla., Mar. 26, 2013) (Hernandez Covington, J.), the … Continue Reading
Typical property policies include an exclusion for law and ordinance coverage, i.e., when the insured property suffers a loss requiring repair, the policy does not cover costs of repairs required to comply with building codes. The issue of law and ordinance coverage typically arises in older buildings that are not up to code at the time … Continue Reading
Jurisdictions typically follow one of three theories with respect to whether an innocent coinsured may recover under a property policy where another insured has committed an intentional act, such as arson, resulting in property damage: (1) a complete bar to coverage based on an unrebuttable presumption that the coinsureds hold joint interests in the property … Continue Reading
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona recently held that the efficient proximate cause doctrine does not exist in Arizona and, therefore, a policy’s concurrent causation language should be given effect. In Stankova et al. v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150900 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2012), … Continue Reading
In Katie Realty, Ltd. d/b/a The Landry Building v. Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Inc., 2012 La. LEXIS 2710 (La. Oct. 16, 2012), the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a written settlement agreement does not constitute a “proof of loss” under La. Rev. Stat. § 22:1892 (A)(1) and, … Continue Reading