How does the court assign the burden of proof when a property policy does not clearly state whether it is an all risks or named perils policy?  The court faced such a policy in Royale Green Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., No. 07-21404, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24349 (S.D. Fla. March 24, 2009).

   After Hurricane Wilma

    The insured moved for summary judgment on bad faith because of the insurer's alleged delayed and incomplete payments after Hurricane Katrina destroyed property.  See Plaquemines Parish School Bd v. Indus. Risk Insurers, No. 06-7213, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20004 (E.D. La. March 11, 2009). 

    School buildings operated by the insured

    The issue before the New York Court of Appeals in Fasso v. Independent Health Assoc., No. 21 (N.Y. Feb. 24, 2009) [here] was whether the injured party and the tortfeasor could settle on terms that extinguished the insurer's subrogation rights? 

    Plaintiff was treated by Dr. Doerr and subsequently developed complications that

    Whether an "all risk" policy covered a building severely damaged by hidden decay was the issue before the Second Circuit in Dalton v. Harleysville Worcester Mut. Ins. Co., No. 07-3545 (2nd Cir. Feb. 19, 2009). 

      During the policy period, damage to an interior wall between the insureds' building and the adjacent

    In a recent post, we discussed Dickerson v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 26504 (5th Cir. Dec. 22, 2008) where the Fifth Circuit determined damages for mental anguish were properly granted based on the insurer's bad faith delay in paying a claim after Hurricane Katrina.  Dickerson controlled a subsequent decision by