Two Travelers units have brought Blue Bell Creameries to Texas federal court, saying they do not have to cover the ice cream maker in a shareholder suit over its alleged failure to prevent the 2015 listeria outbreak that caused a mass recall of Blue Bell's ice creams.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Florida Statute §627.70132 allows an insured to make a claim for an alleged hurricane loss within three years of the event. This statute, however, is not a waiver of the insured’s initial burden of proof to establish causation as a condition precedent to coverage.
In any late reported Hurricane Irma claim, the plaintiff’s bar argues that the insureds have no real burden of proof other than to introduce photographs of roof damages. The plaintiff’s bar argues that if the insurance carrier cannot prove that the roof damages are the result of an exception or exclusion to coverage, that the court must find that all of the damages are the result of wind on September 10, 2017 – an event which occurred three years earlier. This assertion is contrary to the controlling case law and common sense.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Travelers Prevails In Ind. Condo Damage Coverage Fight
Law360 (February 1, 2021, 4:21 PM EST) An Indiana federal judge granted Travelers Indemnity Co. of America s bid to toss a breach of contract suit from Legend s Creek Homeowners Association, ruling that the condo owner s action came too late and it is now barred from seeking appraisal of its loss.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt said Friday that Legend s Creek failed to comply with its insurance policy s two-year limitations period and that an appraisal result does not impact the court s earlier decision that its suit is time-barred and will not allow it to claim more coverage.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 business interruption insurance coverage battles, insurers have labored to pour cold water on these claims often hiring the biggest and wealthiest law firms in America to crush hair salons, motels, restaurants and bars represented by solo practitioners or lawyers with little prior insurance coverage experience. Not surprisingly, insurers have been successful in many of these early David-versus-Goliath cases (many of which involved policies with virus exclusions that the policyholders were seeking to avoid by pointing to government shutdown orders and not the virus as the sole cause of their loss), as we recently discussed. But the tide is turning as, increasingly, courts are applying the policies as written rather than how insurers
Tuesday, January 26, 2021
Two federal cases in the Northern District of Ohio recently reached very different conclusions on whether the state’s COVID-19 shutdowns of restaurants permit valid claims for business interruption insurance coverage. Reviewing essentially the same facts and policy provisions, one court found for the insurer, holding no coverage to exist. The other found for the policyholder, awarding coverage. The opposite results will no doubt lead to further upcoming appellate activity in Ohio. The reasoning in these cases may also lead to further clarifications in Ohio about the rules for interpreting insurance policies.
A.
1:20-CV-01192
In
Santo’s case, Judge Pamela Barker dismissed the policyholder’s claims for business interruption coverage on two main grounds. First, the court found: (a) Santo’s failed to plead a threshold claim of “direct physical loss of or damage to” its insured premises, given the absence of any alleged “tangible