At issue was whether damage caused by a crane landing on a building during a tropical storm was covered as an ensuing loss.  See Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Chabad Lubavitch of Greater Ft. Lauderdale, Inc., 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8403 (Fla. Ct. App. June 8, 2011).

   The insured had two policies

   The court denied cross motions for summary judgment, deciding there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the applicability of both the exclusion for vandalism and the ensuing loss provision.  See New London County Ins. Co. v. Zachem, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 381 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 18, 2011).

   Vandals broke into the

   An article I wrote on ensuing loss was recently published in the ABA’s Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee’s Coverage Magazine (article attached here.)  The article discusses first party property policies providing for ensuing loss.  The ensuing loss provision may read something like this: “We will pay for resulting loss caused by a Peril Insured.”  Accordingly, although

   The ABA’s Section of Litigation, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee’s annual conference was held in Tucson on March 3-5, 2011.  My colleagues, Rina Carmel, Esq., of Carlson, Calladine & Peterson LLP, and Lisa M. Shusto, P.E., of Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, and I led two lively and engaging discussions on ensuing loss provisions in property

   This year’s annual ABA, Section of Litigation, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar will be held in Tucson on March 3-5, 2011.  The conference will offer a number of timely, comprehensive sessions on such insurance-related issues as coverage for natural and not-so-natural disasters, litigation over construction claims, emerging issues in the health care industry

   In this multi-district litigation, the court considered the insurers' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' suits for alleged property damage caused by Chinese drywall.  In Re: Chinese Manufacture Drywall Products Liability Litigation, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133497 (E.D. La. Dec. 16, 2010).  After determining there was coverage, the court considered several exclusions and the ensuing loss provisions

  The insured's claim for business interruption losses resulting from the city's vacate order was not covered as an ensuing loss in Rapid Park Indus. v. Great N. Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115747 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2010).

    The insured leased a parking garage.  Great Northern insured the premises under a business owners' policy.  The policy