A commentary on insurance coverage issues in Hawaii and beyond
Four homeowners filed suit against Farmers after loss due to fire. Henderson v. Farmers Group, Inc., 2012 WL 5246912 (Cal. Ct App. Oct. 24, 2012). The issue was whether Farmers must provide coverage where late notice was given, but no prejudice was shown.
In August 2009, the Station Fire destroyed 89 homes in Southern California.
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…
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 insured homeowners were successful in establishing coverage for water damage after demonstrating an exception to the exclusion relied upon by the insurer was ambiguous. Plantek v. Town of Hamburg, 948 N.Y.S. 2d 797 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012).
The insureds' basement was flooded after an abutting water main ruptured. Allstate denied coverage…
When the additional insured argued it was entitled to coverage for loss to its cars due to a rain storm, the court disagreed because the endorsement only provided for third party coverage. BMW of N. Am. v. Complete Auto Recon Servs., 2012 S.C. App. LEXIS 218 (S.C. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2012).
BMW had…
The court determined the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous and found coverage for the home owners in Platek v. Town of Hamburg, 2012 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5371 (N.Y. App. Div. July 6, 2012).
The burst of a water main caused water damage to the insureds' basement. Allstate disclaimed coverage under exclusion 4 for…
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision finding no coverage due to exclusions from the all-risk policy for losses related to mold, rot and condensation. Koskovich v. Am Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 581 (Minn. Ct. App. June 25, 2012).
In 1978, the insureds purchased…
A U.S. District Court in Washington found coverage in what it described as a text book study of the efficient proximate cause rule. Hiller v. Allstate Pro. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84862 (E.D. Wash. June 19, 2012).
The Hillers purchased a newly constructed home in December 2006. They also purchased an…
