“Southern California Edison will pay $2.2 billion to settle insurance claims for the Woolsey fire that tore through Malibu in 2018,” reports Catherine Traywick of Bloomberg in the Press Telegram’s News.

“The company also reached settlements with plaintiffs involving the 2017 Thomas and Koenigstein fires and the 2018 Montecito mudslides, it said in a statement. Edison, which did not admit wrongdoing or liability, last year reached a $360 million settlement with local government agencies that were harmed by the same fires.”

“Utility equipment has been tied to several devastating California wildfires in recent years, saddling the state’s power companies with billions of dollars in potential liabilities and forcing its largest, PG&E Corp., into bankruptcy in 2019.”

Read the article.

“UnitedHealth Group Inc. announced Friday its hire of Matthew Friedrich as chief legal officer, a role he will assume Jan. 11, as the managed health care and insurance company copes with the ongoing fallout from the coronavirus pandemic,” reports Brian Baxter in Bloomberg Law’s The United State Law Week.

“Friedrich, 54, is a former partner at Boies Schiller Flexner and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer who has spent the past three years as general counsel and chief corporate affairs officer at Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., an information technology services provider and large federal government contractor.”

“He will succeed retiring UnitedHealth legal chief Marianne Short, 69, the first female managing partner at Dorsey & Whitney in Minneapolis. Short stepped down from the law firm in 2013 to take over as UnitedHealth’s top lawyer, replacing Richard Baer, now chief legal officer at Airbnb Inc.”

Read the article.

“The owners of the Scandies Rose have reached a settlement of more than $9 million with two surviving crew and the families of four men who died when the Washington-managed crab boat went down Dec. 31 off Alaska,” reports Hal Bernton in The Seattle Times.

“The agreement was confirmed by Michael Barcott, an attorney representing the Washington and Alaska owners, who said the settlement will be funded by insurance.”

“The agreement will be subject to review in state Superior Court, and how the money will be divided up among survivors and families of the deceased is under discussion, according to Markham.”

Read the article.

“A judge in Durham County, North Carolina has handed down what may be the nation’s first dispositive ruling in favor of policyholders in a COVID-19 business-interruption lawsuit,” reports Jim Sams in Claims Journal.

“Superior Court Judge Orlando F. Hudson Jr. ruled on Oct. 7 that closure orders that restricted the use of a group of 16 restaurants in the Raleigh-Durham area constituted a ‘direct physical loss’ that was covered by the policy.”

“According to a litigation tracker maintained by the University of Pennsylvania law school, as of Thursday 1,183 lawsuits have been filed seeking coverage from insurers for business income losses caused by coronavirus closure orders. Judges have granted insurers’ motions to dismiss in 26 cases, but have denied dismissal motions in 12 cases, including the Durham County lawsuit, according to the university’s data.”

Read the article.

“More than eight years after Bonnie Winslett tore up and threw away a summons that notified her she was being sued, the Georgia Supreme Court is being asked to resolve questions of law that will determine whether GEICO Indemnity Co. must pay approximately $2.7 million of a court’s award against her,” reports Jim Sams in Claims Journal.

“The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday sent three certified questions to the state’s high court. Once answered, the federal appellate court can then rule on an appeal of a district court’s order in a bad faith case that requires GEICO to pay 70% of the nearly $2.9 million in damages awarded by the jury, plus interest.”

Read the article.

“Wheeling Hospital, Inc. has agreed to pay the United States a total of $50,000,000 to resolve claims that it violated the False Claims Act by knowingly submitting claims to the Medicare program that resulted from violations of the Physician Self-Referral Law and the Anti-Kickback Statute, the Justice Department announced Wednesday,” reports MetroNews Staff in MetroNews.

“According to the Justice Department, in this case, the United States alleged that from 2007 to 2020, under the direction and control of its prior management R&V Associates, Ltd. and Ronald Violi, Wheeling Hospital systematically violated the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute by knowingly and willfully paying improper compensation to referring physicians that was based on the volume or value of the physicians’ referrals or was above fair market value.”

Read the article.

“A deadlocked Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Tuesday voted to let stand a state Superior Court ruling overturning a $21 million bad faith ruling against Nationwide,” reports John Huetter in RDN Repairer Driven News.

“The Superior Court had held in a 2-1 2018 decision that Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Sprecher overreached in a 2015 ruling on Nationwide’s behavior related to a Jeep left unsafe after repairs tied to a Blue Ribbon auto body shop.”

“The Supreme Court on Tuesday declared itself ‘divided in a fashion which prevents a majority disposition’ and therefore dismissed the appeal by the Jeep’s lessee. (Justice Christine Donohue didn’t participate in the case.) The move means the Superior Court decision remains intact.”

Read the article.

“In Richards v. State Farm Lloyds … the Texas Supreme Court answered a certified question posed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; namely, whether the absence of a clause requiring a carrier to defend claims that are “groundless, false or fraudulent” means that the “eight-corners” rule does not apply when determining the existence of a duty to defend. The Texas Supreme Court held that the eight-corners rule applies regardless of whether the underlying policy obligates a carrier to defend claims that are groundless, false or fraudulent,” write Alissa K. Christopher and Gregory S. Hudson in Cozen O’Connor’s Recent News & Publications.

“Ten-year-old Jayden Meals died in an ATV accident while under the supervision of his paternal grandparents Janet and Melvin Richards. Jayden’s mother filed suit against the Richards, alleging that they negligently failed to instruct or supervise Jayden in his operation of the ATV. The underlying petition, however, contained no allegations regarding where the fatality occurred and no allegations regarding the custody relationship between Jayden and his paternal grandparents.”

“State Farm Lloyds provided a homeowner’s policy to the Richards. It agreed to defend the Richards under a reservation of rights and separately initiated a declaratory judgment proceeding in federal court.”

Read the article.

As the coronavirus spreads around the world and economic losses mount, insurance should not be overlooked. Pasich LLP has published a Legal Alert on Insurance Coverage for Losses and Claims Associated with the Coronavirus. It addresses why many common types of insurance may provide extensive coverage for the economic losses and litigation associated with the coronavirus. “We believe that many kinds of insurance afford protection against economic losses associated with the spread of the coronavirus and steps taken to minimize its spread,” said Kirk Pasich, Esq.  “We also believe that insurance exists for lawsuits—which have begun to be filed—relating to alleged exposures to the coronavirus or alleged failures to protect against exposure. The reality is that even if, for example, an insured does not have event cancellation insurance, or its event cancellation insurance has a clear express exclusion barring coverage, other policies may afford coverage.  In fact, there often may be coverage afforded for coronavirus-associated losses and litigation under policies that, at first blush, might not be considered as providing coverage. Those policies include property insurance policies and general liability and workers’ compensation insurance,” said Pasich.

Get the full report.

“A certificate of insurance is a document, normally issued by an insurance broker, that supposedly verifies the existence and terms of an insurance policy,” write Gene Killian in The Killina Firm’s Fraud.

He discusses how “It’s common in the construction industry, where contractors and subcontractors are generally required to carry certain types of coverage, but really, the insurance card in your car is also a kind of certificate of insurance. The certificate of insurance is one of the most important documents that you can review in connection with your business contract, because if something goes wrong, you may need to tap that coverage.”

“The problem is, when it comes to enforcing the terms of the coverage reflected on the certificate of insurance, the certificate of insurance is essentially worthless. It’s just a written statement by an insurance broker, not an actual policy.  While it might get the broker or policyholder into trouble for negligence or misrepresentation if it’s not valid, it creates no rights against the insurance company.”

Read the article.

Jason Reeves and Helen Campbell of Zelle LLP offer some advice on commercial property insurance contracts in the firm’s Articles.

“Over the past decade, as commercial property insurance rates softened, so too have terms and conditions. In some instances, attempts to broaden coverage have also had the effect of diluting the clarity and consistency of manuscript forms. The role that underwriters’ contract wordings managers once played in tidying up such issues was weakened when the new imperative was to sign up to a policy wording as presented or risk not having an offered line taken up.” they write.

“The market is changing. As the property market continues to show signs of hardening,” he offers some fixes underwriters should consider.

Read the article.

Even if an errors and omissions policy contains a breach of contract exclusion, coverage may be available in a breach claim, depending on the circumstances and applicable law, writes Charles P. Edwards for Barnes & Thornburg.

Writing in the firm’s Policyholder Protection blog, Edwards discusses a recent court ruling involving coverage for a breach of contract claim brought against a corporate policyholder by one of its customers.

The article also covers two other similar cases.

Read the article.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that a subrogation waiver provision in a construction contract barred an association’s insurance company from seeking to recover from an allegedly negligent contractor, reports Daniel Miske in the Husch Blackwell Association Alert.

He describes the case of United National Insurance Company v. Peninsula Roofing Company, Inc., which involved $3 million in damages to a condominium complex caused  by a contractor’s generator. The association’s insurer sued the contractor for negligence, gross negligence, and breach of contract.

After detailing the appellate court’s ruling, Miske presents four lessons a practitioner can learn from the case.

Read the article.

Word out of the construction insurance brokerage community is that the construction insurance industry has entered a hard market, seemingly overnight, warns Jason Adams, senior counsel at Gibbs Giden.

In a LinkedIn post, he writes that property (i.e. builder’s risk), liability and wrap-up markets are all reacting unfavorably, resulting in higher premiums and decreased availability of coverage options.

He offers five key takeaways, such as the advice to lock in insurance quotes in now, before the underwriters are forced to increase the rates/restrict coverage, or pull the quotes entirely.

Read the article.

By Theresa A. Guertin
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.

Image by Pictures of Money

In honor of Shark Week, that annual television-event where we eagerly flip on the Discovery Channel to get our fix of these magnificent (and terrifying!) creatures, I was inspired to write about the “predatory” practices we’ve encountered recently in our construction insurance practice. The more sophisticated the business and risk management department is, the more likely they have a sophisticated insurer writing their coverage. Although peaceful coexistence is possible, that doesn’t mean that insurers won’t use every advantage available to them – compared to even large corporate insureds, insurance companies are the apex predators of the insurance industry.

In order to safeguard policyholders’ interests, most states have developed a body of law (some statutory, some based on judicial decisions) requiring insurers to act in good faith when dealing with their insureds. This is typically embodied as a requirement that the insurer act “fairly and reasonably” in processing, investigating, and handling claims. If the insurer does not meet this standard, insureds may be entitled to damages above and beyond that which they could otherwise recover for breach of contract.

Proving that an insurer acted in “bad faith,” however, can be like swimming against the riptide. Most states hold that bad faith requires more than just a difference of opinion between insured and insurer over the available coverage – the policyholder must show that the insurer acted “wantonly” or “maliciously,” or, in less stringent jurisdictions, that the insurer was “unreasonable.”/FN 1/

There are, of course, many different types of insurer behavior which exist in the murkier waters between “good faith” and “bad faith” of which policyholders should beware. The following list provides some examples of this questionable behavior.

– Aggressive use of case law. When new case law is published, carriers race to the smell of blood and attempt to implement the law in new, overly aggressive ways. We saw this after the New York Court of Appeals issued its decision in the Burlington/FN 2/ case in 2017. The true impact of the decision was fairly limited; the court found no coverage for an additional insured where it had been judged that the named insured was not at fault and the additional insured was solely at fault. That didn’t stop insurers from attempting to use Burlington to deny defense coverage to additional insureds. Policyholders should be sure they review insurer communications thoroughly and evaluate whether the insurer’s basis for disclaiming coverage is valid and appropriate.

– Changes to insurer personnel. For policyholders who have been with the same insurer for years, there may be a sense of security that claims will be investigated, defended, handled, or settled a certain way. While it is certainly beneficial for corporate insureds to develop partnerships with their insurers, risk managers should always be on the lookout for change which could spell disaster. Sometimes a personnel change – especially when it comes to “legacy” claims like asbestos matters – could signal a shift in the insurer’s treatment of those claims. Risk managers should insist on dedicated claims personnel whenever possible and hold regular stewardship meetings to maintain relationships and ensure that the insurer is aligned with their goals and strategy as much as possible.

– Shifting retroactive dates. Claims-made policies, such as professional, directors & officers, and pollution insurance, often contain retroactive dates which limit how far back in time the insurer’s obligation to pay attaches. Sometimes, at renewal, the carrier may bump up that date to the start of the policy period – a change that may go by undetected, but can result in a major coverage gap. Retroactive dates should almost always be as far in the past as possible, coinciding with the start of the insured’s business if feasible or, at least, as far back as potential losses may have occurred which would give rise to current liabilities.

– Refusal to disclose policies, claim numbers, and other non-privileged information. Upstream parties, such as owners and general contractors, have a right to see a copy of the policy on which they have been added as additional insureds. Insurers sometimes inappropriately refuse access to the policy, which hampers the additional insureds’ ability to pursue their rights. Similarly, other non-privileged information stored by the insurer should be accessible to the insured, including loss runs and other claims data. Redacting sensitive information (i.e., premiums) is acceptable, but complete withholding of policies on which you are insured is not.

– Delay by document request. Another common tactic employed by insurance companies is delaying their coverage analysis until substantial documentation has been submitted to the insurer. Although this may be understandable in the first-party context (i.e., providing back-up documentation to support the cost of repairs for a builder’s risk claim) it is rarely valid when the insured is seeking defense from a liability insurer. Voluminous document requests for contracts, communications, job-site reports, and the like sometimes serve as a hidden means for insurers to delay providing defense, which should be determined based on the complaint’s allegations.

Staying safe in shark-infested waters takes an educated and dedicated team of professionals. Risk managers should stay afloat by keeping up-to-date on current market and legal developments.

________________________________________________________________

1 Compare Martin v. Am. Equity Ins. Co., 185 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D. Conn. 2002) (requiring “wanton and malicious injury, evil motive and violence”) with King v. Atlanta Cas. Ins. Co., 631 S.E.2d 786 (Ga. App. 2006) (taking a reasonableness-based approach to bad faith claims).

2 Burlington Ins. Co. v. NYC Transit Auth., 29 N.Y.3d 313 (2017).

By Andres Avila
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.

Image by Pictures of Money

Tennessee’s Supreme Court recently held that an insurer may not withhold repair labor costs as depreciation when the policy definition of actual cash value is found to be ambiguous. Tennessee joins other states like California and Vermont that prohibit the depreciation of repair labor costs in property policies.

In Lammert v. Auto-Owners (Mut.) Ins. Co., No. M201702546SCR23CV, 2019 WL 1592687, the Lammerts and other insureds sought property damage coverage from Auto Owners Insurance for hail damage to a home and other structures they owned in Tennessee.

Auto-Owners Insurance agreed to settle the claims on an actual cash value basis (ACV), which is a method of establishing the value of insured property that must be replaced to determine the indemnity by the insurer. There are multiple methods to calculate ACV. Auto-Owners decided to use the ACV calculation method of deducting depreciation from the cost to repair or replace the damaged property. Depreciation is the decline in value of a property since it was new because of use, age or wear. The rationale behind this method is that an insured should not make a profit by recovering the cost of, for example, a new roof for a damaged roof that was ten years old, and thus depreciation is deducted from the indemnity.

Auto-Owners, however, decided to deduct both the materials and the repair and replace labor costs, as depreciation, when calculating the ACV. Neither of both policies under dispute specifically mentioned that repair labor costs could be depreciated in their ACV definitions. The parties thus disagreed on whether depreciation applies only to the materials or to both materials and repair labor.

One of the policies defined ACV as “the cost to replace damaged property with new property of similar quality and features reduced by the amount of depreciation applicable to the damaged property immediately prior to the loss;” while the other did not define ACV but stated that ACV included a deduction for depreciation.

The insureds argued that depreciation should be limited only to the cost of the replacement materials. In their view, the language “depreciation applicable to the damaged property” eliminates labor costs, which are intangible and cannot be depreciated because they do not age or wear out. The insureds also argued that the “prior to the loss” policy language eliminated labor costs because the costs at issue were post-loss repair costs. Auto-Owners contended that neither policy was ambiguous because depreciation of a property is calculated based on the total replacement cost, which includes both labor and materials.

Allowing Auto-Owners to depreciate the cost of labor would leave the insureds with an out of pocket loss inconsistent with the principle of indemnity of insurance to make insureds whole. However, allowing the deduction may in turn cause a windfall to the insureds, also defeating the purpose of indemnity. The Tennessee Supreme Court sided with the policyholders and solved the dilemma by citing to case law from, among others, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Nebraska and Minnesota, as well as regulations in Vermont, California and Mississippi.

The Court noted that Oklahoma uses the “broad evidence” rule to determine ACV. This method, also followed in New York, allows insurers to consider any and every fact and circumstance that logically tends to a correct estimate of the loss.

Accordingly, in Redcorn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 55 P.3d 1017, 1020 (Okla. 2002), the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that repair labor must be depreciated under the “broad evidence” method.

A decade later, the Arkansas Supreme Court was more persuaded by the dissenters than the majority in Redcorn and concluded that labor was not depreciable because labor does not lose value due to wear and tear over time in Adams v. Cameron Mutual Insurance Co., 2013 Ark. 475, 430 S.W.3d 675 (2013). However, in 2017 the Arkansas legislature abrogated Adams and enacted Arkansas Statute section 23-88-106, which specifically included the cost of labor in its definition of an expense depreciation.

The Tennessee Supreme Court further noted that Nebraska, which also uses the “broad evidence” rule, sided with the Oklahoma Supreme Court majority. It held that property is a combination of materials and labor and thus repair labor costs must also be depreciated from the replacement cost to determine ACV. Henn v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 295 Neb. 859, 894 N.W.2d 179 (2017). The court also considered a third approach from Minnesota, which also follows the “broad evidence” rule. In Wilcox v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 874 N.W.2d 780, 785 (Minn. 2016), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that certain labor costs may be depreciable making it an issue of fact rather than law.

The Court then turned for guidance to case law from the federal circuit courts of appeals involving the law of Missouri, Kansas and Kentucky. The Tennessee Court found that Missouri and Kentucky lean towards allowing insurers to deduct repair labor costs as depreciation; while Kentucky, on the other hand, leans towards seeing depreciation as an ambiguous term and thus interpreted against insurers, preventing carriers from subtracting repair labor costs as depreciation.

The Tennessee Court then turned to insurance departments’ regulations of the point in California, Vermont and Mississippi. California (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10, § 2695.9(f)(1) (2019)) and Vermont (Insurance Bulletin No. 184) prohibit the depreciation of repair and replacement labor. On the other hand, the Mississippi Insurance Department Bulletin 2017-8 declared the absence of a statutory prohibition to labor costs depreciation in that state but that insurers should clearly provide for it in the insurance policy if they intended to do so.

Tennessee acknowledges both the “broad evidence” rule and the replacement-cost-less-depreciation method to determine ACV. The Tennessee Supreme Court was persuaded that, since neither of the policies explicitly stated whether labor costs are depreciable when calculating ACV, there was an ambiguity that had to be interpreted against insurers and in favor of insureds.

This decision in Tennessee serves as a warning that, absent policy language stating otherwise, property insurers cannot depreciate repair labor costs when calculating the ACV of a property using the replacement cost less depreciation method in Tennessee.

By Kerianne E. Kane
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.

What do you do when your house falls out from underneath you? Over the last few years, homeowners in northeastern Connecticut have been suing their insurers for denying coverage for claims based on deteriorating foundations in their homes. The lawsuits, which have come to be known as the “crumbling concrete cases,” stem from the use of faulty concrete to pour foundations of approximately 35,000 homes built during the 1980s and 1990s. In order to save their homes, thousands of homeowners have been left with no other choice but to lift their homes off the crumbling foundations, tear out the defective concrete and replace it. The process typically costs between $150,000 to $350,000 per home, and homeowner’s insurers are refusing to cover the costs. As a result, dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Connecticut homeowners in both state and federal court.

Of those cases, three related lawsuits against Allstate Insurance Company were the first to make it to the federal appellate level.[1] The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was tasked with deciding one common issue: whether the “collapse” provision in the Allstate homeowner’s policy affords coverage for gradually deteriorating basement walls that remain standing.

The Allstate policies at issue were “all-risk” policies, meaning they covered “sudden and accidental direct physical losses” to residential properties. While “collapse” losses were generally excluded, the policies did provide coverage for a limited class of “sudden and accidental” collapses, including those caused by “hidden decay,” and/or “defective methods or materials used in construction, repair or renovations.” Covered collapses did not include instances of “settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.”

Under Connecticut law, if an insurance policy’s terms are “clear and unambiguous,” then courts will give the terms their ordinary meaning. If the terms are ambiguous, however, courts will construe the language in favor of the insured. The homeowners argued that under Connecticut Supreme Court precedent, the term “collapse” is ambiguous, because it includes not only sudden catastrophe, but also the type of gradual deterioration occurring in the foundations of their homes.

The homeowners principally relied on the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Beach v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.[2] In Beach, the plaintiffs sought coverage from their homeowner’s insurer for a crack in the foundation of their home, caused by a “collapse” within the terms of the policy. The insurer denied that a collapse had occurred and argued that the crack was caused by “settlement of earth movement,” a type of loss excluded under the policy. The homeowners argued that because “collapse” was not defined in the policy, it was ambiguous because it could include both a catastrophic breakdown, as well as a gradual breakdown based on loss of structural strength. The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed, finding that the term “collapse,” left undefined, encompasses “substantial impairment of the structural integrity of a building.” As a result, the court construed the term in favor of the homeowners, noting that if the insurer intended for the definition of “collapse” to be limited to a sudden and complete catastrophe, it had the opportunity to expressly include such a limited definition in the policy.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was not persuaded, however, that Beach was controlling, and found that the policy at issue in Beach was easily distinguishable from the Allstate policies, which included qualifying terms to define covered collapses as “entire,” “sudden” and “accidental.” The Court of Appeals explained that by including these terms, it was expressly clear that Allstate intended for covered collapses to be limited to abrupt, unexpected collapses. As a result, the Court concluded that the damages sustained by the homeowners were not covered under the policies, because not only was the gradual erosion and cracking of the foundations not “sudden” or “accidental,” but “cracking” was expressly excluded from the definition of collapse.

These decisions are a perfect example of the significance of policy terms and definitions, which can vary greatly from one insurance carrier to the next, and the impact that they can have on potential claims. The likelihood of success for the countless crumbling concrete cases still pending in Connecticut courts will largely depend on the specific terms of each policy, and the manner in which terms like “collapse” are defined or otherwise qualified.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 The three cases are Valls v. Allstate Insurance Co., 919 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 2019); Carlson v. Allstate Insurance Co., Case No. 17-3501, 2019 WL 1466935 (2d Cir. April 2, 2019); and Lees v. Allstate Insurance Co., Case No. 18-007, 2019 WL 1466939 (2nd Cir. April 2, 2019).
2 Beach v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 205 Conn. 246, 532 A.2d 1297 (1987).
3 Valls, supra, at 744 (quoting Beach v. Middlesex, 205 Conn. at 253).

When a storm is headed in your direction, it’s critical to prepare for an emergency by making sure you have medical supplies and enough food and water to sustain your family. The aftermath of a storm can be devastating. You should be equally prepared on the insurance front to protect your home and get back on your feet as soon as possible.

Dallas insurance litigator Meloney Perry of Perry Law P.C. offers some storm insurance tips to keep in mind before and after a storm hits.

1. Ensure You Have Adequate Amounts of Insurance and Correct Coverage

Unfortunately, insurance is not a “one size fits all” solution. Simply having insurance coverage sometimes isn’t enough. Educate yourself and understand the adequate types and amounts of insurance that fit your needs.

Extra Credit: Research and compare multiple insurance plans while revisiting your coverage often.

2. Talk with Your Insurance Agent

Do this at least twice a year to revisit coverages—this needs to be done before a storm hits or you may find yourself without coverage you thought you had. Tap into your agent’s knowledge and don’t be shy about asking questions.

Extra Credit: Keep agent information in your telephone and in the cloud for easy access in case of an emergency.

3. Don’t Just Take Out ID Cards, Read Your Insurance Policies

Knowledge is power. If you know what your policy does and doesn’t cover, you’ll be in a better position to work with your insurance carrier. If you don’t understand what is included in our policy, call your agent. (See tip No. 2.)

Extra Credit: Research the Texas Department of Insurance Website for easy Q&A and forms. They’re a great resource.

4. In the Event of Damage or Loss, Take Pictures and Keep All Receipts Handy

Insurance carriers want all the supporting evidence for your claim they can get their hands on. This will allow them to assess the situation and process your claim faster than others.

Extra Credit: Make and keep multiple copies. Upload everything to the cloud for easy access and keep hard copies with a relative or in a fire-proof box.

5. Have A Proof of Loss Form Available for Easy Filing

A proof of loss form will identify the value of the items damaged or lost in the storm. Completing this form quickly and accurately can help with the claims process and avoid possible headaches, such as underpayment, delay or denial of your claim.

Extra Credit: Keep a printout of your insurance policy to determine what to include in the form.

State Farm agreed to pay $250 million on the brink of a trial to customers who claimed the company tried to rig the Illinois justice system to wipe out a $1 billion jury verdict from 19 years ago, Bloomberg reports.

“The customers were seeking as much as $8.5 billion in damages in a civil racketeering trial that was set to start Tuesday in federal court in East St. Louis, Illinois. A judge granted preliminary approval to the accord and set a final fairness hearing for December,” according to the report.

Policyholders had accused the company of leading an effort to recruit a judge friendly to its cause for the Illinois Supreme Court, secretly funding Judge Lloyd Karmeier’s 2004 election campaign by funneling money through advocacy groups that didn’t disclose donors. Under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, any damages would have been tripled.

Read the Bloomberg article.

One of the key insurance policy provisions that is often included in commercial contracts to transfer risk is the requirement that one contracting party make the other contracting party an additional insured on their insurance policy, according a website post for SandRun Risk.

The authors discuss the 2013 Insurance Services Office revisions to the standard additional insured endorsement form.

The three significant changes are:

• Insurance provided to an additional insured will apply only to the extent permitted by law
• If additional insured coverage is required in a contract or agreement, the additional insured will not be provided coverage that is any broader than required in that contract or agreement with the named insured
• The limits available to an additional insured will be the lesser of the limits required by contract or available under the policy

Read the article.