Q&A of the Week |
Trailers on Dwelling Policy
DP 00 01 12 02 says the following under property not covered:
e. Motor vehicles or all other motorized land conveyances.
(1) This includes:
(a) Their accessories, equipment and parts; or
(b) Any device or instrument for the transmitting, recording, receiving or reproduction of sound or pictures which is operated by power from the electrical system of motor vehicles and all other motorized land conveyances, and its accessories. Accessories include antennas, tapes, wires, records, discs or other media that can be used with any device or instrument described above.
The exclusion of property described in paragraphs (a) and (b) above applies only while such property is in or upon the vehicle or conveyance.
(2) We do cover motor vehicles or other motorized land conveyances not required to be registered for use on public roads or property which are:
(a) Used solely to service the Described Location; or
(b) Designed to assist the handicapped;
Would this pertain to a pull behind trailer? The trailer is not motorized but is licensed for the road.
ANSWER: The exclusion states that it applies only to accessories, equipment, and parts and transmission devices while such property is in or upon the vehicle or conveyance. When attached to a vehicle, the trailer should be covered under the auto policy. When sitting in the driveway at the dwelling property as long as it is not attached to a vehicle, it can be covered as personal property. |
|
Litigation Watch |
Ordinance or Law Provision
This insurance coverage dispute arises from property damage at condominiums in Louisiana. This case is Houston Specialty Insurance Company v. Meadows West Condo Association, 2016 WL 81487.
The property is an eighteen-building, 124-unit condominium. The property was damaged by a fire that originated in the HVAC duct work of one of the units. The fire damaged two units located in a single building and the remaining buildings on the property were undamaged.
The fire department examined the fire loss and concluded that the layout of the duct work, the construction of the flex duct, and maintenance and housekeeping issues could have contributed to the fire. The fire chief advised that the property presented a serious fire hazard that needed to be addressed.
Pursuant to this information, Meadows West replaced the flex duct work and then sought coverage under its policy with Houston Specialty Insurance Company (HSIC). The insurer aid the claim for the building that sustained fire damage but refused to cover the flex duct work in the seventeen undamaged buildings. HSIC then sought a declaratory judgment that the policy did not cover the losses in reconfiguring the flex duct work.
The district court denied the motion for summary judgment by HSIC, finding that the ordinance or law provision in the policy covered the losses and that HSIC failed to prove that the exclusion applied. HSIC appealed.
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, reviewed the ordinance or law provision and found that it required HSIC to pay for the loss to the undamaged portion of a covered building caused by the enforcement of any ordinance or law that requires the demolition of parts of the same property not damaged by a covered cause of loss, and that regulates the construction or repair of buildings. Under Louisiana law, the court said that the burden is on Meadows West to prove coverage and the court found that the burden was met.
The insurer argued that the phrase "undamaged portion" means that the ordinance or law provision applies only to buildings that were damaged in the fire. The court said that this argument conflicts with the policy language. The court found that the term "building" refers to all of the buildings at the property. So, even if only one building is damaged by a covered cause of loss, the ordinance or law provision covers all of the buildings at the covered property; damage to just one building is sufficient to trigger coverage as to all buildings.
HSIC also argued that the ordinance or law provision does not apply because the ordinance provided no minimum repair requirements and did not require demolition or regulate repair. The court concluded that the ordinance need not contain minimum repair requirements to trigger the application of the ordinance or law provision. Moreover, the court said that the language of the provision mandates the removal or repair of unsafe structures, and the insured was required by fire officials to reconfigure the flex duct work.
Accordingly, the court found that Meadows West met its burden of proving that the ordinance or law provision applied to the loss.
However, the court then examined the exclusion that said the company will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any faulty, inadequate, or defective design, workmanship, repair, or maintenance of part or all of any property on an insured premises. The facts established that some type of problem in the flex duct work caused the fire, so the court concluded that a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that a defect in either maintenance, construction, or design existed. The exclusion would then apply. Therefore, since HSIC raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the application of the exclusion, the appeals court ruled that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the insured.
In sum, the Circuit Court agreed with the district court that Meadows West established that its losses were covered under the ordinance or law provision, but it also ruled that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the applicability of the exclusion. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
Editor's Note: The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, reviews the ordinance or law provision and rules that the provision covers all of the buildings at the covered property so that damage to just one building is sufficient to trigger coverage as to all buildings. However, even though the insured established that the ordinance applied to the loss, a genuine issue of material fact pertaining to the applicability of the exclusion in the ordinance prevented summary judgment in favor of the insured. |
|
Fraud of the Week |
Receipt Fraud – North Carolina
AMOUNT: Unknown
A couple has been charged with insurance fraud and attempting to obtain property by false pretense and conspiracy; one is facing two additional counts of both insurance fraud and attempting to obtain property by false pretense. The couple submitted written and oral claims to their insurer for stolen property that actually belonged to someone else. Bail for one member of the couple is set at $5,000, and bail for the other member is set at $15,000.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
Join Us Live! |
FC&S editors regularly conduct web-based demos of the service. Feel free to contact Christine Barlow, cbarlow@alm.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 |
|
|