Claim Policy Property Damage 
The Property Insurance Law Observer
MARCH 20, 2025
2025)), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that the plaintiff lacked an insurable interest in property it insured because it did not own or possess the property or suffer economic loss due to the propertys destruction. Litigation ensued regarding that claim.
The Property Insurance Law Observer
FEBRUARY 25, 2025
However, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer on the bad faith claim, emphasizing that a thorough investigation into a questionable claim does not amount to bad faith Background Spinnaker Insurance Company (Spinnaker) issued a homeowners policy to Donald Jackson (Jackson) for a designated residence premises.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The Property Insurance Law Observer
OCTOBER 9, 2024
GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company (2024 WL 3952571), the court affirmed that unambiguous policy limits remain enforceable even when an appraisal award exceeds those limits. This decision provides valuable guidance for insurers handling post-catastrophe claims. The appraisal award exceeded the policy limits for certain items.
Triple-I: Homeowners Insurance
FEBRUARY 13, 2025
Insurance affordability in Georgia is dwindling as claim frequency and insurer costs soar, according to the latest issue brief from Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I), Trends and Insights: Georgia Insurance Affordability. Injury claim severity in the state is slightly higher than in the rest of the country.
The Property Insurance Law Observer
FEBRUARY 14, 2024
29, 2024)), the Court determined that the term “windstorm” was ambiguous as utilized in the subject insurance policy. The insureds suffered property damage caused by a tornado and subsequently submitted a claim to their insurer. —Dallas Jan. That provision stated: 5. Loss of Use. Code § 542A.001(2)(C)
The Property Insurance Law Observer
MARCH 25, 2024
March 11, 2024), the Court determined that the plaintiff property owner, as an additional insured, was not entitled to the same insurance coverage as the named insured where the builder’s risk policy limited the scope of recovery for soft costs and rental income. In doing so, the Court considered several policy provisions.
The Property Insurance Law Observer
SEPTEMBER 23, 2024
American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company , the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that a loose bolt or fitting that could be remedied simply by tightening it did not constitute “direct physical loss of or damage” to equipment covered under an all-risk property insurance policy. [1]
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
130 
Let's personalize your content