32 results for 'cat:"Insurance" AND cat:"Property" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Aiken denies the insurance company partial summary judgment against the insureds' complaint alleging that the insurance company did not pay for covered losses such as the insulation remediation in the attic and underflooring of the insureds' home, which suffered smoke damage from wildfires in the Detroit, Oregon area. At this point, a reasonable juror could conclude that the insurance company sent an adjuster that negligently overlooked the damage in the attic and the underfloor area.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Aiken, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 6:22cv1798, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Estudillo dismisses Highmark Homes' complaint that the insurance companies must cover the former for construction defects. The Condominium, Apartment, Townhouse or Tract Housing Coverage Limitation Endorsement exclusion of the policy applies, because it precludes coverage if an insured constructed 25 or more homes in a development, which Highmark did in the Vintage Hills development.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Estudillo, Filed On: March 18, 2024, Case #: 3:21cv5280, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Kunselman finds that the lower court improperly found that the sellers of a restaurant breached their contract with the buyer in this case wherein the restaurant burned down after the parties signed a sales agreement but before they closed on the deal. The record is devoid of any competent evidence regarding the post-fire value of the property. Vacated.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: Kunselman, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: J-E03003-23, Categories: insurance, property, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Grasz finds a lower court properly granted an insurance company's motion for summary judgment concerning coverage claims brought by a warehouse. The warehouse operator argued that its policy with the insurance company covers property damage liability for the collapse of a building during a deadly tornado. However, the insurance company sufficiently showed in court that it is not obligated to cover damages given that Amazon is the actual owner of the facility. Affirmed.
Court: 8th Circuit, Judge: Grasz, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: 23-1450, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Rice finds that the district court properly concluded that a title company was not contractually liable to provide title insurance based on pro forma documents it created showing that it would issue title insurance on the subject properties. The documents expressly instructed that insurance would be issued only after further requirements were met. Affirmed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: Rice, Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: DA 22-0486, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Wise finds that the trial court properly sided with the insurance companies in a dispute with a college over the lack of coverage for its losses allegedly resulting from Covid-19. The losses fall under the scope of the policy's exclusion, which identifies "virus" as a "pollutant or contaminant" that is not covered. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Wise, Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: 14-22-00145-CV, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Rosenthal denies, in part, an insurer's motion to dismiss a homeowner's claims arising from a coverage dispute for storm-related damage. The homeowner sufficiently alleges his breach of contract claim and a claim related to an allegedly unexplained incomplete payment made by the insurer.
Court: USDC Southern District of Texas, Judge: Rosenthal, Filed On: February 5, 2024, Case #: 4:23cv1897 , NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Dever denies a homeowner couple’s motion for summary judgment after Hurricane Florence damaged their house, causing water damage that a contractor valued over $240,000. State Farm covered only $66,000 of their claim because the existence of vapor barriers within the walls could have caused further damage after the hurricane ended, which State Farm claims its policy does not cover. The couple argues the policy should cover all damage including that sustained as a result of the vapor barriers, thus, there is an unresolved issue of material facts.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Dever, Filed On: February 2, 2024, Case #: 4:21cv146, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Godbey finds for an insurer on a couple's coverage dispute arising from storm damage to their home. They provided no experts to attest to the estimated value of repairs to support their contract claim, nor can they show bad faith, as they fail to show the insurer's estimates were unreasonable.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Godbey, Filed On: January 25, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv1367, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Dawson grants Fidelity's motion to dismiss this title insurance policy dispute after a lender submitted a title insurance claim, which was denied. Fidelity title group asserts no control over Fidelity title insurance, and the lender has not established jurisdiction over the title group.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Dawson , Filed On: January 19, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv1955, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Zilly grants the insureds summary judgment for their claim that the insurance company cannot rely on the vandalism exclusion in the insurance policy to deny the insureds losses from theft of "fixtures, utilities, appurtenances, systems and furnishings." The insurance company asserts that the policy's vandalism exclusion applies because the property was vacant for over 30 consecutive days before the loss, but it offers no basis for why it can deny coverage for any personal property, which includes the washer, dryer and other stand-alone appliances.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Zilly, Filed On: December 28, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv1174, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Dillon grants declaratory judgment to the insurance company, clarifying that it is not obligated to provide coverage. A woman contracted with the recovery service to clean, repair and store her personal property following a water loss at her residence. Later she claimed that they had damaged and lost much of her property. The recovery service did not give the insurance company prompt notice of the woman's claim as required by their contract.
Court: USDC Western District of Virginia, Judge: Dillon, Filed On: December 18, 2023, Case #: 5:23cv29, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Whitehead grants the insurance company partial summary judgment against the real estate investors' lawsuit alleging that the insurance company wrongfully denied their claims for damaged stormwater drainage systems. The 2010 and 2011 notices and the 2001 and 2004 covenants are excluded from coverage under the policy, because the real estate investors knew that the property experienced significant storm drain issues but they continued with the purchase, thus agreeing to the risk of loss, costs and expenses from the property's drainage system.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Whitehead, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv584, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Osteen grants an insurance firm’s motion to dismiss a hospital’s allegations of bad faith after the firm refused to cover wind and hail damage sustained by two buildings. Following the hospital’s insurance claim, an investigator concluded that further inspection of the site was necessary to conclude what was the cause of the damage. Although the hospital construes this as a bad faith action, the need for further inspection does not constitute malice or intentional injury as is required for the claim.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Osteen, Filed On: September 22, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv849, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Wang grants an insurance firm its motion to dismiss a second amended complaint alleging bad faith and breach of contract after a condominium made a vandalism claim for which the firm did not pay out. The firm estimated damages at $13,000, but the condominium rejected the offer and sought another estimate, which turned out to be $225,000. However, the condominium fails to state a claim because it filed all claims outside of the two-year statute of limitations.
Court: USDC Colorado, Judge: Wang, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv3196, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Shepherd finds a lower court properly granted summary judgment to an insurance company on a church's request for coverage. The church argued that the insurance company was obligated to cover costs to repair its building following massive storm. However, the insurance company sufficiently showed in court that the church was not entitled to coverage based on a failure to comply with a cooperation clause listed in its policy. Affirmed.
Court: 8th Circuit, Judge: Shepherd, Filed On: July 13, 2023, Case #: 22-1109, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Clement finds the lower court improperly denied an insurance company’s motion to dismiss. A vehicle hit a commercial building, causing damage. The building owners signed a release when they accepted $25,000 from the driver’s insurance company; they then filed a claim with their insurance company for damages. The insurance company notified them there was no coverage under the policy, as the owners essentially settled when they signed the release. By signing the release, the owners violated the terms of the policy, as it was done without the insurance company’s knowledge, and it terminated its ability to recover costs from the driver via subrogation. The instant court finds the building owners actions materially breached the policy, and the matter is remanded for dismissal of all claims against the insurance company. Reversed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals, Judge: Clement, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: W2022-01209-COA-R9-CV, Categories: insurance, property, contract
J. Stargel finds that the trial court properly ruled for the insurer in this dispute with the insureds' assignee contractor over coverage for roof repairs to the insureds' property. The concealment/fraud provision in the insureds' policy was applicable to their assignee. Affirmed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Stargel, Filed On: June 30, 2023, Case #: 6D23-36, Categories: insurance, property, contract