Disputes involving “vacancy” exclusions typically involve the appropriate definition of that word. We have previously written about such cases here and here. The recently-decided case of Lui v. Essex Ins. Co., 2016 Wash. LEXIS 692 (Wash. June 9, 2016) presents a somewhat different issue, namely, how soon after a vacancy occurs are a
New Jersey Federal Court Confirms Application of Anti-Concurrent Causation Language in Hurricane Sandy Lawsuit
Readers of this blog may note that we have previously discussed the topic of anti-concurrent causation clauses in various jurisdictions around the country (see here, here, and here). As a quick reminder, an anti-concurrent causation clause is that prefatory language that precedes a list of excluded perils, and that generally provides that
Recent Decision Finds No Business Income Coverage Where Flood Caused Order of Civil Authority
When Super Storm Sandy struck the Northeast on October 29, 2012, states, cities, municipalities and towns up and down the East Coast ordered hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate from their homes and businesses. In the aftermath of those mandatory evacuations, I published an article in the April 2013 issue of DRI’s For The
Contra Proferentem in New York: A Last Resort for Resolving Ambiguity in Coverage Disputes
In insurance litigation, insureds often argue that, if a provision in an insurance policy is found to be ambiguous, that ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the insured, and against the insurer that drafted the contract, under the doctrine of contra proferentem. However, as demonstrated by the recent case of Catlin Specialty Ins. Co.
Another State Weighs in on Pollution Exclusions in General Liability Policies
In May 2014, Nevada became the latest state to interpret the breadth and applicability of the pollution exclusion contained within a third-party general liability policy. Although many states have considered this question, those courts have reached diametrically opposite conclusions, leading to confusion and uncertainly, particularly with respect to states that have yet to address the
Interplay Between Two-Year Suit Limitation Provision And Replacement Cost Provision: New York Court of Appeals Holds That The Suit Limitation Period May be Unreasonable Under Certain Circumstances
Many property insurance policies contain suit limitation provisions limiting the time by which an insured may bring an action against the insurer under the policy. In addition to a suit limitation provision, to recover the full replacement costs, as opposed to the actual cash value of the damage, many policies also require an insured to
When It Rains It Pours: The First Circuit Tackles a Conflux of the Rain Limitation, Flood Coverage, Surface Water Exclusion, and Efficient Proximate Cause
In Fidelity Co-Operative Bank v. Nova Cas. Co., 726 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2013), the First Circuit addressed what can happen when a variety of inter-related perils converge to create one loss under a policy with numerous amendatory endorsements that differ substantially from the typical commercial property policy. The insured in this case
New Jersey Appellate Court Rejects Insured’s Attempt to Circumvent the Pollution Exclusion in Asbestos-Related Loss by Using the Vandalism Exception to the Exclusion
When faced with the impending application of an exclusion that negates any coverage for a claimed loss, an insured may sometimes resort to far-fetched or implausible arguments to contend that the exclusion does not apply, or that an exception to the exclusion has the effect of reviving coverage. The insured in Woodcliff Lake Board of
Enforceability of 180-Day Requirement for Recovering Replacement Cost Holdback Addressed By Southern District of New York
A federal court in New York recently cast light on the permissibility of property insurance policy provisions that require an insured to repair or replace damaged property within a certain period of time in order to be compensated for the full cost of the repair or replacement, instead of just the actual cash value of
Insured Fails To Rebut Presumption Of Prejudice: Florida Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment To Insurer On Late Notice Wilma Claim
As we have indicated in prior blog posts on the Soronson, Slominski, and 1500 Coral Towers cases, late notice issues have been cropping up consistently in Florida in the context of Hurricane Wilma claims being reported years after the storm. Although the above-cases were decided by Florida appellate courts, the latest case to