The federal district court determined the insureds' arguments relying upon the efficient proximate cause doctrine were misguided and only a portion of the loss from fire and earth movement was covered. Stankova v. Metro. Prop. & Cas Ins Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150900 (D. Ariz. Oct. 18, 2012).
The insureds' garage was
The Ohio Supreme Court recently determined that underlying obligations of defective workmanship are not claims for "property damage" caused by an "occurrence." Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri. Systems, Inc., 2012 Ohio LEXIS 2485 (Ohio Oct. 16, 2012).
The case evolved from a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
The Texas Court of Appeals decided there was no duty to defend claims of both negligence and negligent misrepresentation in Branham v. State Farm Lloyds, 2012 Tex. Ct. App. LEXIS 7736 (Tex. Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2012).
The insured sold her home to the McCulloughs. After moving into their new home, the McCulloughs sued the insured
Our post last week addressed the duty to defend when alleged faulty workmanship caused loss to property adjacent to where the insured was working. See Pamerin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wis. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012) [post here]. Today, we report
If ever in need of a concise, well-reasoned opinion on "occurrence," "property damage" and applicability of the business risk exclusions, turn to Pamperin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Construction, Inc., 2012 Wis Ct. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012).
A contractor was hired to install concrete during
The court found an anti-assignment provision enforceable, thereby denying coverage for the assignee. Dameron Hospital Assoc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146577 (E.D. Cal. Oct 20, 2012).
Dameron Hospital provided emergency medial treatment to three individuals who were in automobile accidents and had coverage through State
Thinking the loss to their property could not meet the deductible, the insureds failed to file timely notice, thereby barring their claim. Slominski v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 16730 (Fla. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2012).
After Hurricane Wilma hit Florida on October 24, 2005, the insureds made minimal
The federal district court considered the applicability of a document retention clause in Amtex Bancshares v. Bancinsure, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140557 (E.D. Tex Sept. 11, 2012).
Hurricane Ike caused severe damage to the insured's bank on September 13, 2008. The policy issued by Bancinsure, Inc. covered the property and its contents.
The court considered whether rain damage to a house was barred by the policy's mold exclusion. Stewart v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist LEXIS 127804 (D. S.D. Sept. 7, 2012).
The insureds hired DJ Construction to build a new home. Before construction was completed, it was discovered that DJ Construction
The insureds unsuccessfully argued that water damage to their home was covered by the ensuing loss provision. Friedberg v. Chubb & Son, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18817 (8th Cir. Sept. 7, 2012).
The insureds' home was built in 1989. In 2006, extensive water damage was found to the house. The insureds notified