Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Reyna Bernard purchased property and executed a promissory note in the principal amount secured by a mortgage on the property. The mortgage was assigned to HSBC Bank, USA, N.A. A fire later destroyed the property. Manuel Rosario entered into an insurance adjusting agreement with an LLC providing that the LLC would assist with the adjustment of the loss in return for a percentage of the total recoverable loss. Thereafter, Bernard defaulted on the note, and the property was sold at a foreclosure sale to HSBC, leaving an unpaid deficiency on the note in the amount of $246,072. Rhode Island Joint Reinsurance Association (RIJRA) subsequently initiated an interpleader action to determine the respective rights of the LLC, Bernard, and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as agent for HSBC with regard to the insurance proceeds. The superior court found that Ocwen was entitled to the entirety of the insurance proceeds pursuant to the language contained in the mortgage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Bernard and Rosario failed to demonstrate their entitlement to the insurance proceeds; and (2) the mortgage executed by Bernard was duly acknowledged as statutorily required and was therefore valid. View "R.I. Joint Reinsurance Ass’n v. Rosario" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Doug and Gayle Mellin brought a declaratory judgment action asserting, in relevant part, that their homeowner’s insurance policy with defendant Northern Security Insurance Company, Inc. required Northern to reimburse them for losses to their condominium caused by cat urine odor. Plaintiffs' downstairs neighbor kept two cats in her condominium. They surmised that the smell entered their unit from the downstairs condominium through an open plumbing chase servicing the kitchen. In December 2010, plaintiffs filed a claim under their homeowner’s insurance policy, which was denied. Epping's building/health inspector examined the unit and sent a letter to plaintiffs stating that they "have a health problem existing" and the odor "is such that [they] need to move out of[] the apartment temporarily and have a company terminate the odor." Remediation proved unsuccessful. Plaintiffs continued to reside in the unit until February 1, 2011. They claimed that, after that time, they "could [not] have tenants," although they occasionally occupied the unit. Ultimately, they sold their condominium. They claimed that the sale price for the unit was significantly less than that for a comparable condominium in the area which was unaffected by cat urine odor. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Northern. The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment: plaintiffs were not required to demonstrate a "tangible physical alteration" to the unit to prove that the unit was rendered permanently uninhabitable. "Rather, to demonstrate a physical loss under Coverage A, they must establish a distinct and demonstrable alteration to the unit." The Court also reversed with regard to a "pollution exclusion clause" found in plaintiffs' policy: "pollution exclusion clause is ambiguous when applied to the facts of this case and, as such, does not preclude coverage for the plaintiffs’ claims." And with regard to "Coverage D," the Court concluded that the trial court erred in granting Northern judgment as a matter of law. This was vacated, and the entire case remanded for further proceedings. View "Mellin v. Northern Security Insurance Company, Inc." on Justia Law

A large commercial development in Kansas City, Missouri was aborted in the middle of construction due to cost overruns. When the developer would not cover the shortfall, the construction lender stopped releasing committed loan funds, and contractors filed liens against the property for their unpaid work on the unfinished project. Bankruptcy followed, and the contractors’ liens were given priority over the lender’s security interest in the failed development, leaving little recovery for the lender. The lender looked to its title insurer for indemnification. The title policy generally covers lien defects, but it also contains a standard exclusion for liens “created, suffered, assumed or agreed to” by the insured lender. The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of the title company. The exclusion applies to the liens at issue, which resulted from the lender’s cutoff of loan funds, so the title insurer owed no duty to indemnify. The liens arose from insufficient project funds, a risk of loss that the lender, not the title company, had authority and responsibility to discover, monitor, and prevent. View "BB Syndication Servs, Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Eleventh Circuit's review centered on an insurance-coverage dispute that began in 2011 between Severin and Stephanie Hegel and The First Liberty Insurance Corporation. The Hegels claimed that First Liberty improperly denied their claim for a "sinkhole loss," defined under their homeowner's insurance policy as "structural damage to the building, including the foundation, caused by sinkhole activity." First Liberty argued that the damage to the Hegels' residence did not qualify as "structural damage," a term that was not defined in either the policy or the version of the Florida sinkhole-insurance statute applicable to their claim. The the district court granted summary judgment for the Hegels, finding that "structural damage" meant any "damage to the structure" and awarded them $166,518.17 in damages. First Liberty appealed. After review, the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded: the district court erred in equating the contractual term "structural damage" with any "damage to the structure." The case was remanded for further proceedings on whether there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding how much, if any, structural damage to the Hegels' house (as properly defined) was due to sinkhole activity. The district court's determination on this issue will in turn lead to either a new grant of summary judgment for the appropriate party or to a trial on the merits. View "Hegel v. First Liberty Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

After a subsurface water main abutting Plaintiffs’ property ruptured, causing water to flood into and damage their home’s basement, Plaintiffs made a claim under their homeowners’ insurance policy issued by Defendant, Allstate Indemnity Company. Allstate disclaimed coverage based on a provision in the policy excluding coverage for loss caused by water on or below the surface of the ground, including water that seeps through any part of the residence premises. Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that Allstate had improperly disclaimed coverage because their claim fell within the exception to the water loss exclusion. Supreme Court declared that Plaintiffs’ loss was covered under the policy and that Allstate was required to pay the claim. The Appellate Division modified the order by vacating the declaration and otherwise affirmed, concluding that the policy was ambiguous and should be construed in favor of Plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the policy’s unambiguous language excluded from coverage the water damage to Plaintiffs’ home, and the exception did not nullify the water loss exclusion or render it ambiguous. View "Platek v. Town of Hamberg" on Justia Law

Petitioner Cogswell Farm Condominium Association filed a declaratory judgment action with respect to two exclusions in insurance policies issued by respondents Tower Group, Inc. and Acadia Insurance Company. The trial court held that the two exclusions at issue precluded coverage for petitioner's underlying lawsuit against Lemery Building Company, Inc. In 2009, Cogswell sued Lemery and others, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and negligent supervision in the construction of 24 residential condominium units. Cogswell asserted that the "weather barrier" components of the units – including the water/ice shield, flashing, siding, and vapor barrier – were defectively constructed and resulted in damage to the units due to water leaks. Because the units were sold at different times and the policies were in effect during two different time periods, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in holding that one policy exclusion served as a bar for coverage for each unit after it was sold. Furthermore, the Court found that the other exclusion was subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in granting respondents summary judgment with respect to that exclusion. The trial court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Cogswell Farm Condominium Ass'n v. Tower Group, Inc." on Justia Law

During a hail storm, all twenty of the townhome buildings managed by Cedar Bluff Townhome Condominium Association (Cedar Bluff) were damaged, with at least one siding panel on each building sustaining damage. Cedar Bluff submitted a claim to American Family Mutual Insurance Company (American Family) under its businessowners’ policy, which provided for the replacement of “damaged property with other property…[o]f comparable material and quality.” A dispute arose as to whether the policy required the replacement of all siding, including undamaged siding, in order to provide a color match. Because the parties were unable to agree on the amount of the loss, Cedar Bluff demanded an appraisal. The appraisal panel concluded that siding of comparable material and quality required a reasonable color match between the damaged and undamaged siding. American Family refused to pay the appraisal award. The court of appeals agreed with the appraisal panel, concluding that “a reasonable person could understand that ‘comparable material’ means material that is the same color as the damaged property.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the terms of its policy with American Family, Cedar Bluff was entitled to have all of the siding panels on each of its twenty buildings replaced. View "Cedar Bluff Townhome Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2006, Robert and Teresa James brought a lot in a rural subdivision. At the time of the purchase, Chicago Title Insurance Company issued a title insurance policy that insured against loss or damage by reason of “lack of right of access to and from the land.” In 2013, the Jameses sued Chicago Title, contending that the title insurance policy required Chicago Title to provide them “legal” access to their lot. The district court granted summary judgment to Chicago Title, concluding that the Jameses failed to establish that the title insurance policy entitled them to “legal access” to their lot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted judgment to Chicago Title on the Jameses’ claim, under the title insurance policy, that they lacked a right of access to their real property, as the language of the policy insured against loss from not having “a right” of access, and the Jameses clearly had a right of access when they bought the lot. View "James v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Michele Dupree sued Auto-Owners Insurance Company, seeking to recover, under her homeowners’ insurance policy, the full cost of repair or replacement for the personal property that was destroyed in a fire at her home. Because the parties did not agree on the extent of the personal property loss, the parties submitted separate appraisals to an umpire under the process set forth in the insurance policy. The umpire issued an appraisal award that set forth the full replacement cost, the applicable depreciation, and the actual cash value loss of the property. Defendant paid plaintiff the actual cash value of the property but refused to pay the full replacement cost on the ground that plaintiff had failed to submit proof, in accordance with the replacement-cost provision of her insurance policy, that she had actually replaced the damaged property. The court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to plaintiff. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, affirmed in an unpublished opinion per curiam. On appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether plaintiff’s appraisal award entitled her to only the actual cash value of her damaged personal property or whether defendant was liable for the full replacement cost of that property, i.e., actual cash value plus the applicable depreciation amount. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that plaintiff was not entitled to the full replacement cost of her property because she did not submit proof of actual loss in accordance with her policy. Defendant was liable for only the actual cash value of plaintiff’s damaged personal property. View "Dupree v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Wayne Farms owned and operated a chicken processing plant in Oakwood. A fire broke out at the plant in 2003. Roughly three years later, Wayne Farms and its insurers filed suit against Crane Composites, Inc., which manufactured interior panels used in the plant, alleging Crane’s negligence caused the fire to spread extensively. In the meantime, the legislature enacted OCGA 9-11-68 (b) (1). The question for decision in this case is whether OCGA 9-11-68 (a tort reform, fee-shifting statute) could be applied to a negligence action in which the injury occurred prior to the effective date of the statute, but in which the action was filed after that date. The Supreme Court concluded that it could, and in so doing, overruled the case law set forth in "L. P. Gas Industrial Equipment Co. v. Burch," (701 SE2d 602) (2010)). View "Crane Company v. Wayne Farms, LLC" on Justia Law