Typical property policies require the insured to cooperate with the insurer in the investigation of the claim, and specifically require the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss within a certain time period (in some policies this applies only where the insurer requests a proof of loss). If the insured partially complies, i.e., provides

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 and joint obligations under the policy; (2) recovery permitted by innocent coinsured if it is established that his or her interest in the policy is severable from the wrongdoer; and (3) a contractual language and intent of the parties analysis.

In Postell v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 102 (Nov. 16, 2012), the Supreme Court of Iowa followed the contractual language and intent of the parties theory, holding that: (1) a coinsured who sets fire to an insured dwelling in order to commit suicide has the requisite intent to “cause a loss” under the fire insurance policy; (2) an innocent coinsured, who did not participate in setting the fire, could not recover due to the subject policy’s intentional loss exclusion and (3) the innocent coinsured could not recover under the amended Iowa standard fire policy.
Continue Reading Innocent Coinsured Barred From Recovery Under Iowa Standard Fire Policy

Typical property policies require the insured to cooperate with the insurer in the investigation of the claim, and specifically require the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss, provide timely responses to an insurer’s request for documentation related to the claim and, if requested, submit to examinations under oath. If the insured fails to

On October 31, 2012, North Carolina’s Commissioner of Insurance issued Bulletin 12-B-07, which provides an expanded list of counties previously designated (by Executive Order 129 issued on October 26, 2012) as in a “State of Emergency.” When a particular county is so designated, the Bulletin indicates that N.C.G.S § 58-2-46 is triggered, which

Following Maryland, Connecticut, and Rhode Island’s leads, New York and New Jersey are reportedly advising that the hurricane deductible should not apply to claims due to Sandy.

This article published on-line by NBC, indicates that the New York State Department of Financial Services has advised the insurance industry that the hurricane deductible should not

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