Where the building was damaged by both a covered cause and a non-covered cause, the policy's anti-concurrent/anti-sequential causation clause barred coverage for a collapsed building. Ashrit Realty LLC v. Tower Nat'l Ins. Co., 2015 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 107 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Jan. 20, 2015).

   The property sustained moderate damage

   Disagreeing with the excess carrier's interpretation of the primary policy, the court determined the commercial property policy was a blanket policy, thereby invoking additional excess coverage. Landmark Am. Ins. Co. v. Pin-Pon Corp., 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 189 (Fla. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2015).

   The insured purchased a hotel. Renovations were planned

   The appellate court determined that a conditional judgment on replacement costs was appropriate after the insurer denied coverage. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 1073 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2014).

   Stephens operated a large industrial warehouse. It initially purchased a commercial liability policy

   The insurer prevailed in summary judgment, disposing of the insured's bad faith claim based upon the investigation of the loss. Nino v. State Farm Lloyds, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163993 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2014).

   The insured filed a claim with State Farm for damage resulting from a hailstorm on March 29