Showing all results for category “property insurance”

Hail Damage Sparks Fight Over Coverage, Appraisal Demand

Don Sampen analyzes a Northern District of Illinois case in which the court held that a dispute between a property insurer and an insured over a demand for supplemental payments following extensive hail damage amounted to a coverage dispute not subject to appraisal.

Third DCA Rules Limited Water Damage Endorsement Applies to Appraisal Award, and Insurer Not Liable for Full Amount of Award

Tom Moody analyzes Florida’s Third DCA decision in People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Sheila Banks that a $10,000 limited water damage endorsement applied to claim resulting from deteriorated cast iron plumbing, and insurer was not obligated to pay full appraisal award.

Appellate Court Agrees Insurance Broker Owed No Professional Duty to Non-Client

By Zachary W. Johnson and Thushan M. Sabaratnam

A three-justice panel of the Illinois Appellate Court, First District affirmed the dismissal of a landlord’s suit for professional negligence and tortious interference against a tenant’s insurance broker,

Middle District of Florida Grants Summary Judgment for Insurer Based on Late Notice and Recovery of RCV Damages

By Michael J. Raudebaugh

In a recent order granting summary judgment in favor of Westfield Insurance Company, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida reiterated that an insured’s failure to provide timely notice of a claim is a legal basis for denying recovery under the policy.

Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal Rules 627.71052, Florida Statutes, Applies Retroactively

By Douglas M. Cohen

In Cole v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that Fla. Stat. Section 627.70152, which requires a presuit notice of intent to initiate litigation be filed as a condition precedent to filing suit under a property insurance policy,

No Coverage For Fraudulent Wine Purchases Under “Private Collections” Policy

Earlier this year, we wrote about a California Appellate Court case holding that an unsuspecting wine collector who purchased millions of dollars’ worth of counterfeit wine from a “villainous wine dealer” sustained a financial loss,