Live Breaking News & Updates on Uninsured Property
Stay updated with breaking news from Uninsured property. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
In EMOI Services v. Owners Ins, Ohio Supreme Court ruled a policyholder did not suffer direct physical loss of computer media rendered unusable. The decision reverses an Ohio appellate court’s ruling that the cyberattack was covered under a commercial property insurance policy. ....
Physical Alteration of Insured Property is not Required for Coverage Under a Communicable Disease Coverage Extension Where “Direct Physical Loss or Damage” Under the Terms of the. ....
Hurricane-Ready Insurance Coverage natlawreview.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from natlawreview.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
In Denmark, construction all risks insurance covers damage in connection with a construction. It is an 'all risk' insurance, which means that most damage is covered unless directly excluded in the insurance terms. However, primary damage is not generally covered. As several players in the construction industry demanded coverage of primary damage, the London Engineering Group (LEG) introduced the so-called 'LEG3/96' coverage. This article examines challenges associated with LEG3 coverage in Denmark. ....
May.24.2021 Courts Dismiss COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims On May 13, 2021, the district court for the Northern District of Georgia granted American Family Insurance Company’s and Midvale Indemnity Company’s motion to dismiss a COVID-19 business interruption claim filed by the operators of two barbeque restaurants. The court concluded that the plain meaning of the phrase “direct physical loss” requires that there be “actual, physical damage to the covered premises” and the plaintiffs failed to allege any change to the physical condition of property due to COVID-19 closure orders. Order at 11. The court further found that the policy’s unambiguous virus exclusion bars coverage because the plaintiffs “claim no losses that were not caused, at least indirectly, by the virus.” ....