Homeowner’s Insurance
“Actual Cash Value” Policy Did Not Include Cost of Upgrades to Meet Post-Loss Building Code Changes, Court Finds
A federal district court in Arizona has ruled that an insurer that issued owners of a mobile home a policy that covered property losses on an “actual cash value” basis was not obligated to pay for the cost of upgrades to comply with post-loss building code changes. The court ruled that the “plain and ordinary meaning” of the phrase “actual cash value” did not include the cost of repairs to upgrade damaged property to comply with building codes that were not in place at the time that the property was damaged. The court pointed out that the policy specified that actual cash value was to be calculated “at the time of the loss.” In the court’s view, “[n]o plain reading of this provision would stretch it to encompass the cost of repairing the property to a better condition than it was in at the time of the loss. Had the loss not occurred, the [insureds] would have had to pay for the upgrade to bring their mobile home up to code themselves.” Read More

Personal Umbrella
Georgia Supreme Court Finds Requirements of Georgia Uninsured Motorist Law Inapplicable to Renewed Umbrella Policy
In response to two certified questions from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that neither the offer/rejection requirements of the Georgia Uninsured Motorist Act nor the statute’s notice requirements applied to an umbrella insurance policy renewed on or after January 1, 2009. Read More

Homeowner’s Insurance
Arson for Insurance: Anatomy of a Conviction
How much circumstantial evidence is sufficient to uphold an arson conviction of an insured charged with starting a fire in his home in an effort to collect insurance? The Supreme Court of Wyoming explained, in Montee v. State of Wyoming, No. S–12–0166 (Wyo. June 17, 2013) – a decision in which it found sufficient evidence to affirm the conviction of Nicholas M. Montee on a charge of second degree arson. Read More

Professional Liability Insurance
Appeals Court Rules that Accounting Malpractice Action Alleged a Single Claim under Firm’s Policy
An appellate court in California has affirmed a trial court’s decision that an underlying action against an accounting firm and a partner at the firm alleged a single claim under the applicable policy, thus triggering the per-claim limit of liability only and not the aggregate policy limit. The case is Flowers v. CAMICO Mutual Ins. Co., No. A134890 (Cal. Ct. App. June 12, 2013).  Read More