Jennifer Van Voorhis | Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog | November 11, 2018 A ‘schedule of location’ lists property locations where insured assets are located. A homeowner’s policy will list the house, possibly an additional structure. A business policy, when drafted properly, will list all locations insured under the policy where a business loss can… Continue reading How Can the Schedule of Locations Affect Your Claim?
Category: Insurance Coverage
Georgia Court Finds Contamination Clause Ambiguous in Meth Lab Claim
Ashley Harris | Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog | October 28, 2018 A federal court in the Northern District of Georgia recently found that State Farm’s contamination clause was ambiguous regarding its application to a meth lab claim. In Cochran v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company,1 the Plaintiffs owned a rental property in Atlanta, Georgia. While… Continue reading Georgia Court Finds Contamination Clause Ambiguous in Meth Lab Claim
“Abrupt Falling Down of Building or Part of Building” as Definition of Collapse Found Ambiguous
Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii | October 10, 2018 The federal district court predicted the California Supreme Court would find the definition of collapse, calling for the abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or part of a building, to be ambiguous. Hoban v. Nova Cas. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139116… Continue reading “Abrupt Falling Down of Building or Part of Building” as Definition of Collapse Found Ambiguous
Narrowly Interpreted Exclusion Leads to Coverage
Marie Laur | Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog | October 20, 2018 Insurance policies are to be interpreted in the light most favorable to the insured. Narrowly interpreting policy language can help find coverage for an insured, as was the case in Tuscarora Wayne Insurance Company v. Hebron.1 In Tuscarora, a Pennsylvania appellate court reversed a… Continue reading Narrowly Interpreted Exclusion Leads to Coverage
Despite Modern Trend, Ohio Supreme Court Does Not Reconsider Prior Precedent – Finds Inadvertant Defective Work by Subcontractor can Never be a Fortuitous ‘Occurrence’
Clifford Shapiro | Barnes & Thornburg LLP | October 15, 2018 The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 9, 2018, that property damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship can never be an accidental “occurrence” within the meaning of the Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy, and is therefore not covered. Ohio Northern University v. Charles… Continue reading Despite Modern Trend, Ohio Supreme Court Does Not Reconsider Prior Precedent – Finds Inadvertant Defective Work by Subcontractor can Never be a Fortuitous ‘Occurrence’