Problems viewing this email? Click Here

600px_FCS-IntelligenceTopper-New
January 15, 2015  

 
 Q&A of the Week

Blasting and Earth Movement

A Connecticut subscriber recently asked the following question:

Does the ISO HO–3 special form homeowners policy with the earthquake coverage endorsement provide coverage for a loss to the residence premises if blasting being conducted in the neighborhood caused cracking in the walls and windows of the homeowner's property?


ANSWER: An earthquake and earth movement are two different things. An earthquake is caused by sudden shaking of the ground caused by a disturbance deeper within the crust of the Earth. Most earthquakes occur when masses of rock straining against one another along fault lines suddenly fracture and slip. Blasting in the neighborhood does not constitute an earthquake, and therefor there is no coverage.

Editor's note: We've had a number of comments questioning the exclusion when an explosion is involved. Earth movement is excluded regardless whether caused by nature or something else; it has the standard anti-concurrent causation language. The exception for coverage by explosion is if the explosion is the result of the earth movement, not the earth movement being the result of the explosion. For example, an earthquake ruptures a gas line and causes an explosion that damages the house; that is covered. But an explosion causing the earth movement is excluded if the earth movement is what caused the damage. Damage caused by sonic waves caused by the explosion would be covered, but since the subscriber specifically mentioned the earthquake endorsement, we assumed the cause of damage was earth movement.

 
 Litigation Watch
Allegations in the Complaint Are Focus of Judicial Analysis

One insurer brought an action against another insurer, seeking a declaratory judgment that the other insurer had a duty to defend in an underlying action. This case is Seneca Ins. Co. v. James River Ins. Co., No. 03:14-cv-00108-HU, 2014 WL 3547376 (D. Ore. July 17, 2014).

The underlying action alleges construction defects in the Sand & Sea Condominiums. Deacon Corp. entered into a contract with the Sand & Sea unit owners association for the reconstruction and renovation of various portions of Sand & Sea. Deacon subcontracted with Superwall for work on the Curtain Wall Renovation. At some point, the association notified Deacon of property damage and construction defect issues. Deacon investigated and concluded the alleged property damage was the result of construction defects, inadequate or inappropriate usage of materials, and violations of local building codes and relevant industry standards. Deacon held Superwall responsible for the problems.

Deacon sued Superwall and sent notice to James River and Travelers Casualty Insurance Company, claiming status as additional insureds on Superwall's policy of insurance issues by James River and Travelers. The policy with James River was cancelled effective January 11, 2012 and replaced with a policy from Seneca. Therefore, Seneca undertook the defense and filed this motion seeking a declaratory judgment that James River had a duty to defend and seeking a money judgment for 50 percent of its defense costs in defending Superwall.

The United States District Court, Oregon, noted that the duty to defend arises if the complaint provides any basis for which the insurer provides coverage. The analysis focuses on the allegations in the complaint rather than the claims identified with it. The court also noted that the Oregon Supreme Court (Oregon law controls the resolution of this dispute) ruled that at the time a claim was tendered for defense, the issue of when the claimed damage actually occurred was one that would be determined in the litigation, and its resolution could affect the insurer's duty to indemnify, but the duty to defend was based solely on the language of the complaint and the policy.

In the present case, the coverage in the respective policies applies for property damage caused by an occurrence that occurs during the policy period and was unknown to the insured prior to the policy period. Seneca argued that James River has a duty to defend because the complaint alleges property damage caused by an occurrence but is silent with regard to when the alleged damage occurred. Therefore, Seneca argued, the claim against Superwall as stated in the complaint could impose liability for conduct covered by the James River policy. James River countered that the pleadings contain allegations from which James River could conclude damage occurred before its policy's effective date, effectively excluding such damage from coverage.

The District Court found James River's arguments are inconsistent with Oregon law. The fact that Superwall performed work on the project in the summer of 2011 does not mean its work was finished prior to the inception of the James River policy, which had an effective date of September 26, 2011. The court also ruled that, although the evidence at trial may show that damage occurred or began to occur prior to the James River policy's inception, thereby eliminating James River's duty to indemnify Superwall, nothing in Deacon's or Superwall's pleadings requires such a conclusion. James River could not eliminate the possibility that the alleged damage occurred during its policy period based on the allegations in the complaint. Accordingly, the court ruled that James River's duty to defend was triggered by the allegations in Deacon's complaint. Seneca's motion for summary judgment on James River's duty to defend was granted.

As for the money judgment sought by Seneca, the court said that the Oregon Supreme Court has long held that the loss as between insurers should be prorated in the ration that the limits of the policies bear to the total coverage. However, the court also noted that the insurers agreed that the court should not decide the issue of the amount of defense costs at that time. So the court reserved a ruling on that issue.

Editor's Note: This case is a dispute between insurers over coverage for property damage, and the U.S. District Court followed Oregon law in holding that the complaint is the focus of analysis in deciding the issue. The district court noted that, under Oregon law, the notion that a complaint must allege the specific time when a covered event occurred is rejected. So, in this instance, since the property damage could have occurred during the James River policy period, James River had a duty to defend its insured even though the complaint did not specify when the damage did occur.
 
   
 Subscribe to FC&S
FC&S Online is the unquestioned authority on insurance coverage interpretation and anlaysis for the P&C industry. FC&S offers unbiased analysis and interpretation and keeps you current on the latest ISO and AAIS revisions. Providing instant access to the very latest information, FC&S is the resource that agents, attorneys, brokers, risk managers, underwriters, and adjusters rely on to research commercial and personal lines coverage issues.
Quickly and accurately determine coverage under a policy at the time of loss
Research coverage issues and interpretations, including court cases
Access experts live to discuss specific situations
Find answers to questions based on real-world claims disputes
View and print ISO forms
Access updates on breaking litigation and bureau developments
160px_Start-Your-Free-Trial
 
 Join Us Live!
FC&S editors regularly conduct web-based demos of the service. Feel free to contact Christine Barlow, cbarlow@ SummitProNets.com, for more information. They only take 30 minutes, a small investment of time that will help you learn all that FC&S Online has to offer.
 
 Contact Us
As always, your comments and questions are welcome.

Contact us at:
FC&S Department
Phone: 800-543-0874
Fax: 859-692-2246
Email: eAlerts@nuco.com
 
The Zalma Insurance Claims Library
293px_FCS_ZalmaComboImage  
Insurance Claims: A Comprehensive Guide
The only source you'll need to successfully handle insurance claims from start to finish. More Info
Construction Defects Coverage Guide
Your single-source for identifying, insuring, investigating, prosecuting, and defending cases that result from construction defect claims. More Info
Mold Claims Coverage Guide
This guide will allow you to handle mold insurance claims and litigation resulting from mold or fungi related disputes with confidence. More Info
For more information about these titles Click Here
 
FC&S Team
Kelly Maheu, J.D.
Publisher
  Diane W. Richardson, CPCU
Consulting Editor
Christine G. Barlow, CPCU
Managing Editor, FC&S
  Diana B. Reitz, CPCU, AAI
Consulting Editor
David D. Thamann, J.D., CPCU, ARM
Managing Editor, FC&S Bulletins
  Katherine S. Caudill, J.D.
Manager of Product Development
Susan L. Massmann, CPCU
Managing Editor, Electronic Publications
  Emily Brunner
Online Print/Production Editor
Donald S. Malecki, CPCU
Contributing Editor
  Tosha Brinkman
Marketing Manager
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
Contributing Editor
  Donna Cozatchy
Creative Director
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional service. If legal advice is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

To ensure future delivery of email, please add admin@list.nationalunderwriter.com
to your address book, contacts or safe sender list.

You have received this email at %%merge members_.emailaddr_%%.
Click here to unsubscribe from %%merge list.descshort%%.
©2015 Summit Professional Networks, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
 
160px_SummitPN
4157 Olympic Blvd., Suite 225
Erlanger, KY 41018
1-800-543-0874