As we reported in March the issue of whether Named Storm deductibles apply will likely be the subject of Sandy litigation. As a reminder, many state insurance departments issued bulletins indicating that insurance companies should not impose hurricane deductibles on homeowners, mainly because the classification of Sandy shifted from a hurricane to a post-tropical storm

You may recall that we posted a summary of Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Ltd v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140257 (D. Md. Sept. 28, 2012), where the federal district court of the district of Maryland analyzed whether contingent business interruption coverage was triggered where coverage applied only to “direct” contributing

One of the significant coverage issues that arose from Storm Sandy was whether property insurance policies provided coverage for loss of business income arising from the loss of electrical power. Insurers typically offer endorsements that provide coverage for this type of loss in limited circumstances — only where the power failure is caused by direct

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

Builders risk policies for large-scale projects can be complex, and the scope of losses arising from those projects can be difficult to identify. A trial court in New York recently addressed the “delay-in-completion” and “permission to occupy/operate” endorsements, concluding that both provisions were unambiguous and measured delays based on the scheduled date of completion. See

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

In a series of recent sua sponte decisions in six Superstorm Sandy cases, Judges Seybert and Feuerstein dismissed extra contractual claims and dismissed all but the first named plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. The cases involve up to two hundred and seventeen named plaintiffs (perhaps in an attempt to avoid separate

In Austin-Casares v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2013 Conn. LEXIS 409 (Dec. 3, 2013), the Connecticut Supreme Court, in a case of first impression, reversed a trial court’s decision, which held that the suit limitation provision unambiguously precluded a mortgagee from intervening in a suit when the motion to intervene was filed after the

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 .