Is That Really Your Product?
Overhead and Profit Must Be Included In Replacement Cost Policy Payout
The law regularly changes, but often, business are not keeping up. Long standing practices that have worked for years may seem difficult to change, but failing to do so can be costly. Whether it is required language to be included within your contracts, or limitations of liability that need to be addressed through contract language or insurance, your business must change with the times, or face harsh penalties. The case of Ramcharitar v. Derosins is an example that should get your attention. Read on . . . .
Casualty insurance policies have long contained provisions requiring appraisal as to disputes. All too often, property owners would being suit to force their insurer to pay for a covered loss, only to have the case dismissed or stayed until the property owner complied with the policy provisions requiring such appraisal. After a while, it simply became assumed that before suit could be filed to determine the amount of the loss, submission to the appraisal process was mandatory. Not so. Read More . . .
It is often repeated that the clear and unambiguous terms of an insurance policy govern, but that if any ambiguities exist, they are resolved in the favor of the insured. It is equally axiomatic that statutes are to be given their clear meaning. Based on those well established principles of law, the issues decided in the recent case of Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. River Manor Condominium Assn, Inc., would seem to be predictable. Guess again. Maybe Not. Read On . . .
As we have written before (read here), providing timely notice of an insurance claim can often be the difference between securing coverage, or facing financial catastrophe. In the case of 1500 Coral Towers Condominium Association, Inc. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Florida Courts have again weighed in on the topic. In that case, the condominium suffered what appeared to be minor roof damage as a result of land-falling Hurricane Wilma in October of 2005. The Condominium Association took it upon themselves to make those relatively minor roofing repairs in December of 2005. That they hoped would be the end of the story. Unfortunately that was not the case. Read On . . .
Whether to put forth effort to reduce or eliminate unnecessary risks may be evaluated on a cost-benefit basis. In the context of insurance, the costs of reducing or eliminating issues that might interfere with your right to coverage are sometimes very low, while benefit of doing so is quite high. For example, in a previous article of ours which can be found here, we discussed the importance of timely informing an insurer of a claim. While the law is fairly liberal in protecting insureds in that area, the cost of timely informing the insurer of a claim is low, yet the failure to do so can be costly. In this article, we discuss the rigmarole (cost) an insured went through over the timing of submitting a proof of loss to his insurer. Read On ...
Is Appraisal Mandatory to Resolve a Policy Dispute?
ever wonder what to look for when hiring a design professional? One key step is to verify that the design professional is adequately insured in the event of any potential claims regarding the design professional's work. This primer will help you learn what to look for. Professional Liability Policies 101
In October of 2005, the home of Justin and Selma Soronson ("the Insureds") was hit by land falling Hurricane Wilma. ("the Home"). The Insureds did not notice any damage, nor was damage apparently visible from a reasonable and customary inspection. More than three years later, in 2009, an inspection was performed on the roof of the Home that revealed damage that appeared to be caused by a windstorm event. The Insureds immediately notified their insurance carrier and complied with the insurance policy's requirement for submission of a sworn proof of loss. The insurance company conducted its own inspection, and denied coverage. The insurer claimed that no damage was verified, and the passage of time prior to notice of the claim being made prejudiced the insurance company's ability to properly determine the cause of any such damage. Judgment was entered in favor of the insurance company and an appeal ensued.