Bloglikes - Insurance en-US Sat, 30 May 2020 21:49:14 +0000 Sat, 06 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0000 FeedWriter United India Insurance Administrative Officer Medical Recruitment 2020 Please Click on the Title to Read Full Details.

[Author: (Manisha)]

Sat, 30 May 2020 02:25:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Jobs Medical Insurance Officer Administrative Manisha Public-Sector MBBS General Insurance Company UIIC United India Insurance Company Limited UIIC
Landlord Insurance in a Nutshell: 10 Essential Points to Remember Millions of individuals serve as landlords in the United States today. Many of these individuals now discover they aren’t as protected as they believed thanks to the coronavirus. For example, certain areas stopped all evictions in response to the pandemic, and landlords must scramble to cover mortgages when their renters fail to pay. Anyone who has yet to obtain landlord insurance should consider investing in this financial product to know they are covered regardless of what comes up in the future. The following are some important points to remember regarding this type of protection.

What is Landlord Insurance?

Landlord insurance provides coverage in the event the property sustains damage, someone suffers an injury while on the property, or the home becomes unlivable due to a catastrophic event. Many landlords believe they are covered under their standard homeowner’s insurance policy, but this is not the case. The standard policy only provides limited protection for rentals, which is why additional coverage should be purchased. Learn more online at .

Property Damage

Property damage is typically covered by a landlord insurance policy. The policy pays out if the home is physically damaged due to weather, fire, or criminal activity. For example, a roof damaged during a hail storm will usually be repaired or replaced under the policy. This coverage also protects the landlord in the event another building on the property sustains damage, and the same holds true of equipment stored on the property for the purpose of maintaining it. This includes snowblowers and lawnmowers along with other equipment.

Liability Claims

Liability claims are also covered under this type of policy. Individuals hurt while residing on the property or visiting may file a claim against the property owner. If this happens, the insurer helps cover the cost of any medical bills associated with the injury, legal fees relating to the accident, and settlements that may result from a legal case. This also won’t be covered by the standard homeowner insurance policy, so the extra policy is needed.

Loss of Income

Loss of income tends to be covered under a landlord insurance policy. When the rental property is deemed unlivable due to a covered loss, such as a tornado or fire, the landlord receives reimbursement for any rental income lost while the home is being repaired or rebuilt. However, this portion of the policy only covers damage to the structure in the event it becomes unlivable. Additional coverage is needed if a renter refuses to pay rent, and a rider needs to be obtained to secure that type of coverage.

Rent Guarantee Coverage

Rent guarantee protection ensures the landlord gets paid in the event a renter refuses to pay as agreed. This has become an issue during the pandemic for many landlords. Their tenants are no longer employed and employment benefits have yet to be paid. As a result, the tenant isn’t able to meet their obligations and rent payments are falling behind . The landlord will be covered in this situation and receive the funds needed to pay the mortgage on the property or other bills.

Renters’ Insurance

Tenant’s belongings aren’t protected under a landlord insurance policy. The renter remains responsible for obtaining coverage for these items. Tenants need to secure renters’ insurance  to cover their belongings in the event of a disaster, theft, or another catastrophe. Be sure to include a clause in the rental agreement requiring the purchase of this policy by renters for your own protection. If they do try to sue because their possessions were damaged, this clause helps to protect the landlord.

Landlord Contents Insurance

Landlord contents insurance is similar to renters insurance but covers any belongings of the landlord in the rental. This includes a dishwasher that breaks or a furnace that goes out while the property is being rented. However, landlords need to sit down with a licensed insurance agent to find out exactly what this portion of the policy covers and what is excluded.

Reducing the Cost of Insurance

There are ways to minimize the cost of landlord insurance. Bundle policies when possible, and ask for discounts. For instance, some landlords find they are eligible for a discount because they served in the military. These discounts help to keep the cost of coverage down. Others benefit from comparing quotes with different insurers to find the best price. However, be sure to compare the policies carefully to ensure you know what you are getting. Finally, ask about discounts for installing safety features in the property, such as deadbolts and surveillance cameras. Many insurers offer a lower price when these items are installed because they know their risk is reduced thanks to the presence of their installation on the property.

Legal Assistance Coverage

Legal assistance coverage is something every property owner should consider investing in. Issues may arise unrelated to liability suits and the landlord will be responsible for any legal costs associated with these actions. Securing a policy to cover expenses incurred as a result of these issues provides an extra layer of protection for the owner. Legal fees quickly add up and eat into the owner’s profits. This coverage ensures that this is not the case.

Paying for the Coverage

Landlords may include the cost of any coverage in the rent. Obviously, the amount of rent that may be charged for a residence is based in part on where the property is located and what type of property it is. However, some renters are happy to pay slightly more to rent a property with landlord insurance. They know they are protected if something goes wrong. For example, if a person is injured while living on the property, they know the bills will be paid even if the landlord doesn’t have the funds to cover them. The insurance company steps in and handles payment, so the tenant can move forward with life without concerns about mounting expenses being incurred through no fault of their own.

Landlord insurance protects a property owner and their investment in a rental. Owning a rental property comes with a great deal of responsibility, and landlords need all the help they can get. This type of policy is of great benefit when something goes wrong, as the landlord won’t need to use any profits from the rental to rectify the situation. The peace of mind obtained from knowing this is priceless.

The post Landlord Insurance in a Nutshell: 10 Essential Points to Remember appeared first on Blogtrepreneur.

Fri, 29 May 2020 06:37:11 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Sales Insurance United States Blog & Grow Landlord insurance Liability Claims Liability Landlord Contents Insurance Landlord Legal Assistance Coverage Legal
Life-insurance: 4 Questions You Ahould Not be Afraid to Ask Buying life insurance can be for many one huge decision, therefore asking the right questions at the right time is essential. In the old say, if you wanted to ask a major question that implies your financial situation, you probably had to leave your home, go to the library, or seek a trusted advisor. Fortunately, those days are long gone as today, most of us have the luxury to delve into a 1500-word article on our smartphones and find our most asked questions and their answers.

As you shop for life insurance, you’ll likely have a lot of questions not only about what you are buying but also on what can happen after your purchase.

Life insurance doesn’t have to be confusing, especially when the financial future of those you love are in play. Let’s delve together through some most asked questions so you can get a better approach on this topic:

1. How much life insurance do I need?

In order to sort out how much insurance you need, you will have to take a look at your current situation and ongoing expenses, future expenses, and even your funeral. But adding up all those numbers can typically amount to a bigger policy than you actually need. Moreover, you should subtract assets that could add up toward those expenses such as investments and savings.

2. Are multiple life policies possible?

Indeed, you can benefit from multiple policies from the same or even numerous insurance companies. For instance, you could purchase a permanent life insurance policy like a whole life type insurance and also a term life policy for a shorter need. These may include paying a mortgage or savings for your kids’ college if you were to die. When you apply for more insurance coverage than your current situation requires, top life insurance companies will likely ask you why.

3. Why buy life insurance when I’m young?

One of the many advantages of buying life insurance as a young person is that you’ll be able to lock in a steady rate for the extent of the policy. For instance, if you have dependents in the future, you have secured a low rate and ensured your own “insurability,” which means you don’t even have to worry about higher rates as you age and potentially experience deteriorating health.

Bear in mind that the older and less healthy you are when you purchase a life insurance policy, the higher the price.

4. What if I don’t die?

It goes without saying that before purchasing any kind of life insurance, you should think about what and why you are buying it. Do you need financial protection for your family in case of early death? Are you facing any additional debt which requires you to provide coverage?

In case you want a policy to cover your financial obligation, you may want to consider permanent life insurance. If you are currently experiencing a cash crunch and have an urgent responsibility towards your family, a business partner, or your lender, term insurance policy can offer you a short-term solution.


Thu, 28 May 2020 00:18:19 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Marketing Insurance
Homeowners are unprepared for flooding in many cities: report Wed, 27 May 2020 17:03:20 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Utah Real Estate Texas Colorado California Boston Sacramento Insurance Radio Idaho Hawaii Hurricane Sandy Fema Hurricane Flooding Michigan Hurricane Katrina Cleveland St. Louis Detroit Lendingtree El Paso Colorado Springs Honolulu Boise Riverside Provo National Flood Insurance Program News Brief NFIP ValuePenguin Hurricane Harvey Rivian is building an in-house insurance agency Rivian is hiring an insurance agency data manager, a job posting that suggests the all-electric automaker is planning to offer its own insurance to customers.

The job was first posted by , which also reached out to TechCrunch with the tip. Roadshow/CNET about this new position. Rivian wouldn’t provide more details about its plans, but did confirm it has some job postings in the area of insurance.

The job is to lead Rivian’s property and casualty (P&C) insurance agency, a position that entails recruiting, training, coaching and managing employed licensed sales agents and an insurance customer care team, according to the posting on Rivian’s website. The employee will also sell insurance products and provide feedback to partners on opportunities, the posting said.

The posting, which seeks someone with more than 10 years of experience and who is a licensed in P&C in multiple states, suggests this will be a global product. The job is  based at the automaker’s factory in Normal, Ill., and not at its Plymouth, Mich. headquarters. State Farm Insurance is headquartered in Bloomington, Ill., located within miles of Normal, which should give Rivian access to a large pool of talented applicants.

The move appears to follow Tesla’s lead. Last August, Tesla  launched an insurance product, promising owners of its electric vehicles to deliver rates 20% and even as high as 30% lower than other insurance providers. The product known as Tesla Insurance is only available to owners in California. The business will expand to additional U.S. states in the future, Tesla has said.

Wed, 27 May 2020 15:33:54 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Money California Finance Insurance Tech Tesla Economy Automotive Michigan Illinois TechCrunch Normal State Farm Insurance Bloomington Ill Plymouth Mich Rivian Roadshow CNET Tesla Insurance
Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied     The court found there was no coverage for the insureds' alleged negligent failure to construct a building.  Evanston Ins. Co. v. DCM Contracting , 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63977 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 28, 2020).

    Turning Point Church sued DCM Contracting for faulty workmanship on a construction project. Turning Point sent a demand letter to DCM on August 18, 2017 and filed suit in December. Evanston did not receive notice of Turning Point's claims and the lawsuit until May 15, 2018. 

    Evanston filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment. The court first considered the late notice. The policy required notice "as soon as practicable" DCM was also required to provide copies of demands, notices, or legal papers to Evanston. Here, DCM did not give notice to Evanston until nine months after receipt of Turning Point's demand. A phone communication with DCM's agent between August 2017 and May 2018 was insufficient. DCM provided no documents, including the summons and complaint, to the agent. DCM waited five months to forward the underlying lawsuit. This was a breach of the policy.

    There was also no occurrence. The underlying lawsuit sought damages to repair DCM's work and economic losses. Any claims of economic loss by Turning Point did not constitute property damage. 

    Accordingly, summary judgment was awarded to Evanston. 

[Author: Tred Eyerly]

Wed, 27 May 2020 11:14:07 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Insurance Evanston Comprehensive General Liability Construction Defects Tred Eyerly Evanston Ins Co Notice DCM Contracting
Coronavirus Insurance Backstop Bill Introduced in Congress ]]> Tue, 26 May 2020 16:48:13 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs New York Hollywood News Congress Insurance Carolyn Maloney Coronavirus Insurance Backstop Bill Introduced Will Bars Exist in NYC After the Coronavirus? Fri, 22 May 2020 05:00:19 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs News Restaurants Insurance Ny Relief Taxation Shutdowns (Institutional Brooklyn (NYC Real Estate (Commercial Bars and Nightclubs Coronavirus (2019-nCoV Coronavirus Aid and Economic Security Act (2020 Long Island Bar (Brooklyn Broker Not Agent of Insurer     The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, finding that the insured's broker was not an agent of the carrier. Maxum Indem. Co. v. Broken Spoke Bar & Grill , 2020 U.S. District. LEXIS 49736 (W.D. Ky. March 23, 2020).

    The insured argued that "insurance Agent Clark" assured him that coverage would extend to altercations or robberies at the insured's bar. Maxum Indemnity Company denied coverage and filed suit for a declaratory judgment. Maxum moved for summary judgment.

    The issue was whether Maxum was equitably estopped as a result of alleged representation of Agony Clark. Estoppel arose when the insured detrimentally relied on the acts or representations of the insurer that were inconsistent with the terms of the policy. When an insurance agent made affirmative misrepresentations about the coverage, and the insured relied upon those misrepresentations to their detriment, an insurer could be liable for any injury suffered by the insured. 

    The insured argued that Agent Clark made verbal assurances that the policy would cover the cost of any lawsuit and damages following an altercation at the bar under his policy with Maxum. These alleged statements made by Agent Clark were of no consequence unless he acted as an agent for Maxum. 

    Agent Clark acted as the insured's insurance broker regarding the application and placement of the Maxum policy. A broker was ordinarily employed by the person seeking insurance and was an agent of the insured, not the insurer. The insured sought insurance from a surplus lines carrier, so he needed to go through a licenses broker. Agent Clark was the surplus lines broker representing the insured. At no time was Agent Clark appointed to act on behalf of Maxum, nor was Agent Clark ever affiliated with Maxum in any capacity. The underwriting materials between the parties also explained the relationship. Finally, the insured had a twenty year relationship with Agent Clark. 

    Therefore, Agent Clark was an agent of the insured, not Maxum, and was acting on the insured's behalf throughout the application, underwriting and placement of the Maxum policy. Maxum's summary judgment motion was granted.

[Author: Tred Eyerly]

Wed, 20 May 2020 11:14:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Insurance Clark Tred Eyerly Duty to Indemnify MAXUM Maxum Indem Co Broken Spoke Bar Grill 2020 U S District LEXIS Maxum Indemnity Company Agony Clark Estoppel
INSURANCE CHECKLIST FOR BUSINESS OWNERS Running a business involves many stakeholders, and every activity directly affects these parties. Your employees, customers, and the middle people who are responsible for making your business successful are your asset.  Every step you take and every activity you perform can affect these people in serious ways that can prove expensive and costly for both parties. Therefore, businesses make sure that they are insured to safeguard the consequences of a potential mishap that can put a business in a compromising situation. Business insurance is essential to protect your financial assets and those of others. In case one of your customers or parties is harmed because of your products or services, then this business liability insurance can pull you out of a grave condition. Running a business without insurance is a crucial risk; it is essential to understand the level of risk exposure of your business. Then you can assess your assets and discuss with an insurance company or broker to see if they can offer a suitable coverage to minimize the damaging impact of a business blow.

Here is an insurance checklist that a business owner must analyze.

1.  Understand The Policy Of The Insurance

The initial step of an insurance checklist looks quite lengthy and confusing, but the professionals at the insurance company can guide you at every step. You need to know the terms and conditions of insurance before signing it. Like professional liability insurance ensures that your company or business is safe when your services or products cause financial harm. The policy of the insurance secures your business, but who is at a loss is free to have a claim and file a lawsuit against you. It is where you need to have a discussion with your insurance agent about the secondary consequences of claim on your business. Similarly, workers’ compensation insurance, commercial property insurance, general liability insurance, specified disease insurance ,  and other policies have their own pros and cons

2.  Assess The Risk Factor

As a business owner, you must plan smartly and stay ready for the likely consequences of a business breakdown. The risk factor allows you to guarantee the well-being of your employee, your customer, and your products. Workers and employees  who meet an accident during work can get workers’ compensation, this benefit comes with certain conditions, and your workers must be aware of the limitations.  The risk factor is not limited to the employees alone, and when a non-employee gets hurt at your business site, it can put your business in danger if you are not prepared for insurance. In this scenario, the general liability insurance can be helpful, and this insurance can cover the financial expenses of the non-employee and keep your business running.

3.  Keep A Check On Your Assets

Your finances are the backbone of your business; having a backup plan is necessary to keep your company harmless during a business casualty. You can use the assets for multiple reasons, to repair broken equipment, to someone if they sue you, and to expand your business. To pull a sinking business out of financial crises, your insurance policy of equipment breakdown coverage or tools coverage can give you a helping hand. Before getting the insurance you will have to mention the worth of your equipment, you can get the exact amount for the equipment in case of equipment breakdown. The amount of insurance is to replace the damage, but sometimes the insurance agencies subtract the depreciation later.

4.  Gather Information And Talk To An Insurance Broker

When you meet an insurance broker, you can ask as many questions as you want to clear your doubts. You will get to choose from a wide range of policies and insurance companies, and the broker is the guy who can help you get the most suitable insurance for your business. If you have international employees, make sure you know the international laws about employee safety and benefits. Search for an experienced and well-renowned broker who has dealt with a similar business like yours before. Make all the necessary arrangements first before meeting your broker; keep your documents ready and call before going. Do your homework properly so that your insurance process does not face any hindrance. Documents like your employee list, their payroll, company vehicle  details, and business history must be ready.

5.  Get The Policy That Suits Your Business

Be patient and do not rush into signing the policy; if you feel like your business does not require the policies, then select the ones that suit your business well. Review the policy as many times as you want and consult people who have similar businesses and see how beneficial it is. Consider the endorsements, limits, exclusions, and other welfares of the policy first.


To run a business successfully, you always need to have a good financial backup. Having business insurance can protect your business from potential business mishaps. Business insurance policies vary from company to company and it falls on the top in the insurance checklist. Then you need to evaluate the business risks and keep track of your assets. Do not rush into signing the policy; meet an insurance broker to get all the necessary information first. The insurance policy should cover some essential sectors like workers’ compensation insurance in case of an accident on the worksite, general liability insurance that covers a non-employees loss at your work site.

Similarly, the insurance must be flexible enough to offer your business property assurance and your health insurance along with the workers. Do not buy policies that are of no use to your business. Keep your documents ready before visiting the insurance broker to avoid any interruption in the process.

The post INSURANCE CHECKLIST FOR BUSINESS OWNERS appeared first on Blogtrepreneur.

Mon, 18 May 2020 14:32:58 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Sales Insurance Blog & Grow
Hawaii Insurance Division Issues New Memorandum on Policy Handling During COVID-19     The Hawaii Insurance Commissioner issued Memorandum 2020-4A on April 27, 2020, waiving certain requirements for insurers and to give instructions and guidelines. 

    First, the Insurance Division will not regard the following as unfair trade practices or unfair methods of competition under Haw. Rev. Stat, Art. 13:

. Waiving of fees, penalties, or other charges relating to an insured's temporary inability to submit

premium payments or otherwise respond to an insurer's inquiries;

. Extending of grace periods for payment of premiums;

. Granting of additional time to policyholders to pay premiums before non-renewals or cancellations become effective;

. Extending of proof of loss submission deadlines to claimants;

. Allowing of self-auditing and self-reporting in lieu of physical audits to the extent that physical audits

are impracticable;

. Encouraging policyholders to use electronic payment technology on websites, apps, and electronic bank

transfers whenever possible to avoid in person payments.

    The Insurance Division will also support the virtual inspections of property and the increased used of electronic delivery methods for consumer notifications and interactions.

    Finally, the Memorandum states the the Insurance Division will consider specific proposals from insurers to quickly adjust to changes in the insurer's risk exposure. The may include allowing personal vehicles to be covered while delivering food, medicine, or other essential services for commercial and charitable purposes; temporarily reducing premium prospectively; or refunding premiums retroactively. The Division may also waive enforcement of relevant applicable statutes, and may allow insurers to deviate from filed rates or contractual language if the insurer's actions are applied uniformly and without prejudice to all similarly affected insureds. 

    The Memorandum remains in effect for 60 days and may be extended. 

[Author: Tred Eyerly]

Mon, 18 May 2020 11:11:52 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Insurance Hawaii Administrative Tred Eyerly COVID-19 Hawaii Insurance Commissioner First the Insurance Division the Insurance Division
When Lawyers Get Sued – Learn How To Protect Your Firm [Sponsored] May 29th to find out how to make insurance a bit less painful and confusing.]]> Fri, 15 May 2020 13:43:52 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Technology Law Insurance Webinars Sponsored Content Small Law Firms Embroker Donations to Nonprofit Treated as Revenues for Business Interruption Calculations     The court found that a nonprofit's donation receipts were included in its revenues for determining its business interruption claim.  Alley Theatre v. Hanover Ins. Co. , 2020 U.S Dist. LEXIS 52393 (S.D Tex. March 26, 2020). 

    Alley Theatre was closed due to Hurricane Harvey. It received donations after it was closed. Alley submitted a claim for business interruption losses due to its closure. Its policy provided income coverage "during the 'restoration period' when your business is necessarily wholly or partially interrupted by direct physical loss of or damage to property at a covered location." The policy further provided that "actual loss of net income (net profit or loss before income taxes) that would have been earned or incurred and continuing operating expenses normally incurred by your business" was covered. 

    Hanover argued that Alley was required to produce information on the donations it received after it was closed because the donations represented revenue that was included in the business-interruption loss calculation. Alley responded that the donations did not represent revenue, and, even if they did, they would not be included in the business-interruption loss calculation because they were received after Alley closed due to the hurricane. 

    The court relied upon a Fifth Circuit case,  Finger Furniture Co. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. , 404 F. 3d 312 (5th Cir. 2005), where a furniture company held a weekend sale after reopening its furniture store that had closed for two days due to flooding from a tropical storm. There, the insurer argued that Finger Furniture did not have an actual loss of sales because it made up sales in the two-day event. The Fifth Circuit disagreed. The business-loss provision said nothing about taking into account actual post-damage sales to determine what the insured would have experienced had the storm not occurred. The most reliable evidence of what a business would have done had the catastrophe not occurred was what it had been doing in the period just before the interruption. 

    Therefore, as a matter of law, the charitable donations were included in the nonprofit's revenue calculation, and the parties were to follow the Finger Furniture's instruction for business-interruption calculations, limiting inquiry to historical revenue and not actual post-storm revenue. 

[Author: Tred Eyerly]

Wed, 13 May 2020 11:13:32 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Insurance Commonwealth Alley Hanover Fifth Circuit Tred Eyerly Business Interruption First Party Insurance Alley Theatre Hanover Ins Finger Furniture Co Finger Furniture
Nearly 27 million Americans lost their job-based health insurance in pandemic, study shows
IMAGE: Health Insurance Coverage Before and After Job Loss Among People in a Family Experiencing Job Loss as of May 2, 2020, courtesy

An estimated 27 million Americans may have lost employer-based health insurance because of pandemic layoffs, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report released Wednesday.

From CNN:

Not all of those people will be left uninsured, however. Some 12.7 million would be eligible for Medicaid and another 8.4 million could qualify for subsidies to buy coverage on the Affordable Care Act exchanges -- though Kaiser notes they would have to sign up for that coverage.

But that would still leave about 5.7 million people who would have to shoulder the full cost of new policies, which could prove too expensive for newly unemployed people. They could continue their employer coverage through COBRA, but would have to pay the entire premium, which totals $7,188 for a single person and $20,576 for a family of four, on average -- putting that group at risk for becoming uninsured.

The report is the latest in a series of dire projections of how the steep economic downturn has likely left millions of people without employer-based policies, which cover roughly 153 million non-elderly workers and their dependents.


Nearly 27 million Americans may have lost job-based health insurance, study shows
[Tami Luhby, CNN, 8:26 AM ET, Wed May 13, 2020]

Eligibility for ACA Health Coverage Following Job Loss
[KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION, Rachel Garfield, Gary Claxton, Anthony Damico, and Larry Levitt, Published: May 13, 2020]

Wed, 13 May 2020 09:42:05 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Health Post Business News Obamacare Insurance Economy Cnn Healthcare Kaiser Health Insurance Health Care ACA Medicaid Larry Levitt Kaiser Family Foundation Pandemic Tami Luhby Coronavirus COVID-19 Covid19 Rachel Garfield Gary Claxton Anthony Damico
COVID-19 pandemic roundup
  • Liability exposures are a major roadblock to reopening. Over to you, state and federal lawmakers [Jim Copland, City Journal] “Can reopened businesses use waivers to fight coronavirus lawsuits? Probably not” [Daniel Fisher, Legal Newsline]
  • The structural reasons America is so good at turning out cans of soda and so awful at turning out COVID-19 tests [Paul Romer] Links we haven’t rounded up previously on the testing debacle: Alec Stapp, The Dispatch; Michael D. Shear, Abby Goodnough, Sheila Kaplan, Sheri Fink, Katie Thomas and Noah Weiland, New York Times; Shawn Boburg, Robert O’Harrow Jr., Neena Satija and Amy Goldstein, Washington Post; Jeffrey Singer; Caroline Chen, Marshall Allen and Lexi Churchill, ProPublica; Paul Detrick, Jacob Sullum; earlier here, etc.;
  • Loosening a 1967 federal law so as to ease intrastate sales of meat between ranchers and local grocers could help both consumers and embattled livestock raisers while better respecting the Constitution’s scheme of federal authority [Baylen Linnekin; related here from 2010 on the tendency of food regulation to be pushed by a combination of consumer/safety groups and large producers, for whom the regulation often serves to improve their position as against smaller market players]
  • “Even though the state government asked thousands of people to come to New York from out of state to help fight coronavirus, they will have to pay New York state taxes, even on income they might make from their home states that they’re paid while in New York.” [Corey Crockett and James Ford, WPIX]
  • Forced retroactive coverage of business interruption risks never underwritten or paid for “could bankrupt the insurance industry,” per one defense lawyer [Alison Frankel, earlier here and here; Nancy Adams and Kaitlyn Leonard, WLF]
  • Bilingual national identity is not a suicide pact: “Canada recently relaxed bilingual labeling requirements for some cleaning products coming from the United States.” [Inu Manak]
  • Tags: Canada, COVID-19 virus, insurance, taxes
    Wed, 13 May 2020 06:25:44 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs New York Taxes Law Washington Post Uncategorized America Insurance Canada United States James Ford Alison Frankel Daniel Fisher Dispatch Amy Goldstein Baylen Linnekin Nancy Adams Jeffrey Singer Paul Romer Inu Manak Jim Copland City Journal Alec Stapp COVID-19 virus Noah Weiland New York Times Shawn Boburg Robert O Harrow Jr Neena Satija Caroline Chen Marshall Allen Lexi Churchill Paul Detrick Jacob Sullum Corey Crockett Kaitlyn Leonard
    Texas Supreme Court Stands By Eight-Corners Rule In Determining Duty to Defend     In answering  a certified question from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court held that the eight-corners rule applied when determining the duty to defend even if the policy did not promise to defend suits that were "groundless, false or fraudulent."  Richards v. State Farm Lloyds , 2020 WL 1313782 (Tex. March 20, 2020).

        The insureds' grandson died from an accident when he was driving an all-terrain vehicle on the grandparents' property. The child's mother sued the grandparents, alleging negligent failure to supervise and instruct the boy. 

        The insureds' homeowners policy with State Farm Lloyds provided,

    If a claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence, we will:

    . . . 

    2. provided a defense at our expense . . . 

        State Farm Lloyds defended under a reservation of rights and then sued the grandparents in federal district court, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. State Farm Lloyds argued based upon the policy language, the eight-corners rule did not apply and it could rely upon extrinsic evidence to determine its duty to defend. State Farm Lloyds asserted that the eight-corners rule only applied when the policy provided a defense even when the allegations were "groundless, false or fraudu l ent." 

        The federal district court agreed. The insureds' policy did not include a groundless-claims clause, so the eight-corners rule did not apply. The district court granted summary judgment to State Farm Lloyds.

        The grandparents appealed and the Fifth Circuit certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court: does the eight-corners rule not apply when the policy does not include language requiring the insurer to defend "all actions against its insured no matter if the allegations of the suit are groundless, false, or fraudulent."

        Before the Texas Supreme, Court the insureds argued that the eight-corners rule was not dependent on the presence of a groundless-claims clause. The court's analysis of the duty to defend had never turned on the presence of such language in the policy. The Texas Supreme Court agreed. State Farm Lloyds did not contract away the eight-corners rule altogether merely by omitting from the policy an express agreement to defend claims that were "groundless, false, or fraudulent."

    [Author: Tred Eyerly]

    Mon, 11 May 2020 11:11:47 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Insurance Fifth Circuit Richards Texas Supreme Court Duty to Defend Tred Eyerly Fifth Circuit the Texas Supreme Court State Farm Lloyds
    The Waves Of COVID-19 Insurance Claims Mon, 11 May 2020 10:42:37 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Insurance Mark Herrmann Coronavirus COVID-19 Life Insurance: Why It’s Important and How to Choose the Right Policy Read the rest of the post... ]]> Wed, 06 May 2020 22:06:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Marketing Insurance Policy Life Insurance Premium Dispute Over Number of Occurrences Remanded by Alaska Supreme Court     The Alaska Supreme Court remanded to the trial court to determine whether the parties reached agreement in their settlement on the number of occurrences. McCormick v. Chippewa, Inc. , 2020 Alaska LEXIS 20 (Alaska March 20, 2020).

        Brent McCormick was injured while working aboard the vessel owned by Chippewa, Inc. McCormick sued Chippewa. 

        Chippewa had a policy with a $500,000 per-occurrence limit less defense costs. McCormick's attorney, Gerald Markham, sent Chippewa an offer to settle the lawsuit "for any and all injuries occurring or arising out of Mr. McCormick's employment on the vessel in exchange for the policy limits" of Chippewa's insurance policy. The offer described two accidents McCormick suffered during this time. Chippewa accepted the "demand for payment of the remaining policy limits."

        Thereafter, Markham called Chippewa's attorney, Laura Farley, to discuss the settlement. The next day, he sent a letter to Farley indicating a dispute existed regarding the number of occurrences under the policy. The letter suggested that Farley had stated that  the insurer accepted McCormick's policy limits offer to pay limits "whatever they might be." Markham attached a signed settlement agreement, releasing Chippewa from liability "in consideration of the remaining policy limits available." Markham dismissed the lawsuit.

        Chippewa sent McCormick a letter stating that the remaining policy limit after deduction of defense costs was $424,040.05, which would be paid to McCormick. McCormick did not respond to the letter.

        McCormick then filed a new lawsuit, seeking enforcement of the purported settlement agreement. In a motion for partial summary judgment, McCormick clarified that he believed there had been three "occurrences," under the policy, which would triple the available policy limits. The trial court granted Chippewa's motion for summary judgment, concluding the parties had entered into a binding settlement agreement, leaving only an issue of interpreting the phrase "remaining policy limits" in the agreement,. The court concluded that "remaining policy limits" referred to the remainder of a single limit of $500,000, not the sum of multiple occurrences with each having a $500,000 limit.

        The Alaska Supreme Court reversed. The record indicated that the expressed intent of the parties regarding an essential term of the purported settlement agreement was in dispute. Markham submitted an affidavit detailing the phone call between the attorneys. He stated his belief that there was more than one occurrence, but the attorneys agreed to settle while leaving the number of occurrences unresolved. In light of this account, when McCormick signed the purported settlement agreement, it could have been with the understanding that the parties had not yet decided on the limits. Markham's account was contradicted by Farley, who testified in an affidavit and deposition that the parties never discussed the number of occurrences during the call.

        Given the interplay between the number of occurrences and policy limits, the conflicting evidence abut the phone call presented a genuine issue of material fact. The case was remanded to allow the trier of fact to determine whether the parties reached an agreement and, if so, what terms they agreed to. 



    [Author: Tred Eyerly]

    Wed, 06 May 2020 11:12:37 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Insurance Alaska Markham Farley Alaska Supreme Court McCormick Chippewa Tred Eyerly Occurrence McCormick McCormick Chippewa Inc Brent McCormick Chippewa Chippewa Gerald Markham Laura Farley
    Accident Away From Insured Premises Covered Under Homeowners Policy     The insured was covered under his homeowner's policy when two visitors to an uninsured location were killed by carbon monoxide poisoning. Green Mountain Ins. Co., Inc. v. Wakelin , 140 N.E. 3d 418 (Mass. 2020).

        Wakelin owned a cabin without electricity in a remote location. He purchased a gasoline-powered generator. He wanted the generator to be portable and paid extra for wheels and a handle for the generator. He brought the generator to his cabin to use there to provide power for his power tools when working on the property. The generator was not hard wired into the cabin. The generator was used and stored outside. 

        In July 2015, two of Wakelin's children and two of their friends went to visit the cabin. The four decided to bring the generator into the cabin so they could run an extension cord from the generator to a small refrigerator. They failed to open any windows or doors when they went to sleep, and were found dead inside the cabin.

        The estates of the two friends who died sued Wakelin. Wakelin's homeowners insurer sued for a declaratory judgment that Wakelin was not covered. The policy excluded injury or property damage arising out of a premises owned by an insured that was not an insured location under the policy. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The superior court denied the insurer's motion and entered judgment in favor of Wakelin. The insurer appealed

        The issue on appeal was whether the bodily injury arose from the uninsured premises or from tortious personal conduct. Case law demonstrated a distinction between cases of tortious conduct that occurred on an uninsured premises and personal liability that arose out of a condition on the premises. Although it was a close question, the court concluded that the generator did not constitute a condition of the uninsured premises, and the accident caused by the generator could not trigger the uninsured premises exclusion.

        The generator was portable, and Wakelin spent extra money on the generator so that it would be portable. It was also not hard wired into the cabin's rough electrical system to make it a part of the cabin. Nor was it regularly used to provide electricity in the cabin. The generator was brought to the cabin to charge power tools used to complete the cabin's construction, and was not continuously run to power everyday appliances inside the cabin.

        It was Wakelin's failure to instruct his children on how to properly use the generator rather than any condition or defect on the property that was the basis for his potential liability here. Therefore, the judgment of the superior court was affirmed.


    [Author: Tred Eyerly]

    Mon, 04 May 2020 11:13:01 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Insurance Wakelin Tred Eyerly First Party Insurance Green Mountain Ins Co Inc Wakelin Wakelin
    Hawaii Insurance Division Issues Request to Insurers on COVID-19     The Hawaii Insurance Commissioner has requested that admitted and non-admitted insurers offering policies in Hawaii take special consideration of policyholder impacted by COVID-19. The March 27, 2020 bulletin reads: 

        The impact on individuals and businesses due to COVID-19 nationwide is evident in the daily news coverage. The anticipated negative impact on individuals and businesses in this State due to COVID-19 will be realized in the near future. Business will have substantially reduced revenue, employees will have reduced hours and may lose their jobs, with further reaching repercussions. The Insurance Commissioner is issuing Memorandum 2020-3I to encourage insurers selling insurance coverage in the State for all lines of insurance to be mindful of the difficulties individuals and businesses in the State are experiencing.

        The Insurance Commissioner encourages insurers to work with their insureds to ensure coverage continues during this time, policies do not lapse, and to consider the following:

    1. Refrain from cancelling or non-renewing policies due to non-payment during this time of hardship and to grant a grace period for premium payments to be made;
    2. Work with insureds on a structured payment plan for late premium payments;
    3. Waive late fees and penalties;
    4. Extend timeframes to complete property and automobile inspections or undergo medical examinations; and
    5. Continue working with insureds for a period of 60 days after this health emergency has passed, or as long as reasonably practical.

        The Insurance Division empathizes with those impacted by the business downturn caused by COVID-19 and encourages insurers and policyholders, particularly those with limited financial resources, to communicate and work on a mutually agreeable solution.

        This Memo is directed to all admitted and non-admitted insurers in this State providing any insurance coverage including life, health, motor vehicle, property, casualty, and other types of insurance of insurance for individuals, groups, and businesses.

        The Division will continue to monitor this situation and issue updates on its website at .

        The memo is somewhat less forceful than what some states have requested of insurers. In a prior post [here], we noted that New York's Department of Financial Services instructed insurers to advise policyholders of possible coverage under business interruption provisions. 

    [Author: Tred Eyerly]

    Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:15:52 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs New York Insurance Hawaii Administrative State Division Department of Financial Services Tred Eyerly Business Interruption COVID-19 COVID
    Pennsylvania Court Upholds Executive Order Closing Non-Essential Businesses Due to Coronavirus     The Governor's Executive Order compelling the closure of non-essential businesses to reduce the spread of coronavirus survived a challenge before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. F riends of Devito v. Wolf , 2020 Pa. LEXIS 1987 (Pa. April 13, 2020). The case does not involve coverage issues, but the court's acknowledgment and description of the dangers of coronavirus may have an impact on future coverage litigation. 

        Petitioners were four businesses and one individual seeking extraordinary relief from the Governor's March 19, 2020 order compelling the closure of all non-life-sustaining business to reduce the spread of the coronavirus disease. The Petitioners contended that the Governor lacked any authority to issue the order, and, even if he did have authority, it violated their constitutional rights. Petitioners included a campaign committee, a licensed real estate agent, a public golf course, and a laundry service.

        The order noted the possible increased threat from COVID-19 constituted a threat of imminent disaster to the health of the citizens of the state. The threat of imminent disaster had already caused the closure of schools and would likely prompt additional local measures, including affected county and municipal governments to declare local disaster emergencies because of COVID-19. 

        In challenging the order, petitioners contended that the COVID-19 pandemic was not a natural disaster as defined by the state's Emergency Code. The court disagreed and found the pandemic qualified as a "natural disaster" under the Emergency Code for two reasons. First, and of significance for future coverage litigation over coronavirus claims, the common theme among disasters described in the Code was that all involved substantial damage to property, hardship, suffering, and possible loss of life. Thus, COVID-19 was a type of "natural disaster" referred to in the Code. 

        Petitioners alternatively argued that even if the pandemic was a natural disaster, the Governor only had authority to act in the "disaster area," and there were no disasters in the areas in which their businesses were located. In another important statement for future coverage issues, the court found this argument ignored the nature of the virus and the manner in which it was transmitted. The virus spread primarily through person-to-person contact, had an incubation period of up to fourteen days, one in four carriers of the virus was asymptomatic, and the virus could live on surfaces for up to four days. Thus, any location (including Petitioner's businesses) where two or more people could congregate was within the disaster area.

        The Petitioners' second argument, that there is no significant risk of the spread of COVID-19 in locations where the disease had not been detected (including at their places of business), was also unpersuasive. In another passage that of import for coverage battles to come, the court again stated that COVID-19 does not spread because the virus is "at" a particular location. Instead it spreads because of person-to-person contact, as it has an incubation period of up to fourteen days and that one in four carriers of the virus was asymptomatic. 

        The court went on to reject Petitioners' constitutional arguments: (1) the order violated the separation of powers doctrine; (2) the order constituted a taking requiring just compensation; (3) the Petitioners were not accorded procedural due process; (4) the order violated equal protection principles; (5) and the order interfered with the right of free speech and assembly.

        Accordingly, the court found that the Governor had statutory authority to issue the Executive Order and the Petitioners failed to establish any basis for relief based upon their constitutional challenges. The request to vacate or strike the Executive Order was denied. 


    [Author: Tred Eyerly]

    Mon, 27 Apr 2020 11:13:49 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Insurance Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Supreme Court DeVito Petitioner Tred Eyerly Petitioners COVID-19 COVID
    Igloo raises $8.2M to bring insurance to more people in Southeast Asia Singapore-based Igloo, formerly known as Axinan, has raised $8.2 million as the insurance-tech startup looks to broaden its foothold in half a dozen Southeast Asian markets and Australia.

    InVent, a corporate venture capital arm of telecommunications firm Intouch Holdings, led Igloo’s extended Series A round, the startup told TechCrunch. Existing investors Openspace Ventures, a venture capital fund that invests in Southeast Asia, and Linear Capital, a Shanghai-based early-stage venture capital firm focusing on tech-driven startups, participated in this round, which makes four-year-old Igloo’s to-date raise to $16 million. It raised about $1 million in its Seed financing round.

    Igloo — founded by Wei Zhu, who previously served as Chief Technology Officer at Grab — works with e-commerce and travel firms such as Lazada, RedDoorz, and Shopee in Southeast Asia to offer their customers insurance products that provide protection on electronics, and coverage on accidents and travel.

    The startup, which also operates in Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia, said more than 15 million users have benefitted from its insurance products to date, and in the last one year it has processed more than 50 million transactions.

    Igloo, which rebranded from Axinan this month, said insurance products are proving especially useful to — and popular among — people during the coronavirus outbreak.

    Wei Zhu told TechCrunch that the startup has seen a surge in transactions and customer acquisitions in the last 45 days. “While some travel related business have seen a dip, the larger e-commerce business continues to see a surge,” he added.

    “With COVID-19 impacting every facet of personal life and business, digitisation can help the world adjust to the new normal. This is especially apparent in insurance, where we can tap on digital channels for distribution and also for creating awareness,” he said.

    “We see that digital insurance is on the rise in Southeast Asia, and we believe that Igloo, with our digital-first approach and expansion of our product portfolio into personal health, accident and other related products can help fill those gaps and address consumers’ needs for personal well-being,” he added.

    He said the digital insurance penetration remains low in Southeast Asia, and Igloo sees massive opportunity in the space. According to one estimate (PDF), Southeast Asia’s digital insurance market is currently valued at $2 billion and is expected to grow to $8 billion by 2025.

    The startup, which competes with a handful of startups including Singapore Life and Saphron, will use the fresh capital to expand its business development and engineering teams and broaden its presence in the half-dozen markets. It is already engaging with telecom operators, banks, non-banking financial firms, and travel agencies, it said.

    Fri, 24 Apr 2020 01:54:58 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Asia Indonesia Australia Southeast Asia Singapore Funding Insurance Tech E-commerce Thailand Philippines Malaysia Shanghai Venture Capital Igloo RedDoorz Lazada Grab Lazada Group Shopee Wei Zhu Openspace Ventures Singapore Life Axinan Intouch Holdings Lazada RedDoorz Vietnam Philippines Thailand Singapore Indonesia Saphron
    Hong Kong insurtech startup OneDegree launches its first product, medical coverage for pets OneDegree, the Hong Kong-based insurance technology startup, launched its first product today, a line of medical plans for pets called Pawfect Care. The company will introduce other products, including cyber insurance and medical coverage for humans, all available completely online, over the next 12 months.

    Founded in 2016, OneDegree raised $30 million in Series A funding last year, and its investors include BitRock Capital, Cyperport Macro Fund and Cathay Ventures.

    Co-founder and CEO Alvin Kwock told TechCrunch that it took OneDegree two years to launch Pawfect Care because of the stringent regulatory approval process required to get an insurance license in Hong Kong.

    The first two virtual insurance licenses issued by Hong Kong’s Insurance Authority went to companies owned by existing insurance providers (Sun Life’s Bow Tie and Asia Insurance’s Avo), in an effort to encourage more legacy players to go digital. OneDegree was the first independent insurance company to start online to be granted a license.

    OneDegree will gradually launch cyber and human medical insurance plans over the next year. Kwock said the COVID-19 pandemic has created a “paradigm shift,” because face-to-face activities have declined dramatically, and the Insurance Authority is now issuing new virtual insurance licenses and allowing more products to be sold online.

    The company decided to start with pet insurance because the company estimates that even though there are about half a million pet dogs and cats in Hong Kong, only about 3% of them have medical insurance despite the high cost of veterinary care. OneDegree lets customers buy and manage policies and file claims through a mobile app. It says that about 90% of approved claims will be paid within two working days.

    In response to the pandemic, Pawfect Care’s pet insurance includes coverage of medical costs related to COVID-19. OneDegree emphasizes that there have only been a few known cases of pets testing positive for the virus so far and no evidence of them acting as carriers so far, but added the coverage for customers’ peace of mind.

    Thu, 23 Apr 2020 03:12:38 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Startups TC Asia Hong Kong Pets Insurance Tech Sun Life Insurtech Insurance Authority OneDegree Alvin Kwock BitRock Capital Cyperport Macro Fund Cathay Ventures Co Hong Kong 's Insurance Authority Asia Insurance Kwock Pawfect Care
    Is There Direct Physical Loss Under A Property Policy When Cornavirus is Present?     Most property policies provide coverage for property damage only when there is "direct physical loss" to covered property. Early indications are that the coronavirus remains on surfaces. The duration can last from a few hours to three weeks, depending on the type of surface material. If an employee is infected and the store or restaurant must closed because the virus may rest on surfaces within the building, is there direct physical loss, even though the building structure itself is unharmed?

        To answer this question, cases from jurisdictions outside Hawaii may provide guidance. In a case from Louisiana, the homeowner had to move out of her home when excessive levels of organic lead were discovered in the kitchen, living room, master bedroom, and attic.  Widder v. La. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. , 82 So. 3d 294 (La. Ct. App. 2011). The insurer denied coverage because there was no direct physical loss. The trial court agreed; since the home was still intact, no direct physical loss had occurred, so there was no coverage under the policy. The appellate court reversed. It compared the presence of inorganic lead in the home to cases that found a direct physical loss from the existence of Chinese drywall, from which gaseous fumes were released, rendering the home unusable or uninhabitable. Physical damage was not necessary.

        What if smoke from a nearby wildfire fills an outdoor theater, forcing cancellation of performances and loss of business income? This was the situation in Oregon Shakespeare Festival Ass'n v. Great Am. Inc. Co. , 2016 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 74450 (D. Ore. Jun 7, 2016). Wildfires in the area caused smoke, soot, and ash to accumulate on the surface of seats and concrete ground of the open-air theater. The air quality was poor, but no federal, state or local agency ordered cancellation of the performances. Further, the theater did not suffer any permanent or structural damage to its property. The insurer denied coverage, contending that the loss or damage must be structural to the building itself. After all, the smoke in the air at the theater did not require any repairs to the structure of the property. The court disagreed. The theater sustained "physical loss or damage to property" when the wildfire smoke infiltrated the theater and rendered it unusable for its intended purpose. The decision in  Oregon Shakespeare Festival was eventually vacated by a joint stipulation of the parties.  Oregon Shakespeare Festival Ass'n v. Great Am. Ins.Co. , 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33208 (D. Ore. March 6, 2017), but the reasoning is still sound. 

        The Oregon Shakespeare Festival case cited several cases to support its view.  A pervasive odor in a home caused by a subtenant's illegal methamphetamine operation was considered a "direct physical loss." The court concluded that odor was "physical" because it damaged the house.  Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon v. Trutanich , 858 P.2d 1332 (Ore. Ct. App. 1993).

        An accidental release of ammonia into a packaging facility caused the facility to shutdown for one week while the ammonia dissipated. The court noted that while structural alteration provided the most obvious sign of physical damage, property can sustain physical loss or damage without experiencing structural alteration. The release of ammonia into the building, rendering the building unfit for occupancy, constituted "physical loss or damage."  Gregory Packaging, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. , 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165232 (D. N.J. Nov. 25, 2014). 

        Where gasoline vapors penetrated the foundation of the insured church and accumulated, rendering the building uninhabitable, the property was held to have suffered a "direct, physical loss."  Western Fire Ins. Co. v. First Presbyterian Church , 437 P. 2d 52 (Colo. 1968). Carbon monoxide levels in an apartment building sufficient to render the building uninhabitable was a "direct, physical loss."  Matzner v. Seaco Ins. Co. , 1998 Mass. Super. LEXIS 407 (Mass. Super. 1998).

        Finally, contamination due to microscopic asbestos fibers was found to be contamination causing the physical loss or damage required to trigger coverage under a property policy.  United Stat Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Wilkin insulation Co. , 144 Ill. 2d 64 1991). 

        Based upon these cases, a building in which the virus is located may well present "direct physical loss" under a property policy. Of course, exclusions will also have to be considered to determine whether coverage exists. 

    [Author: Tred Eyerly]

    Wed, 22 Apr 2020 23:13:31 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Oregon Insurance Hawaii Louisiana Wilkin First Presbyterian Church Tred Eyerly Business Interruption First Party Insurance Travelers Prop Cas Co Chinese Drywall Widder Great Am Ins COVID-19 Trutanich La Citizens Prop Ins Corp Oregon Shakespeare Festival Ass n Great Am Inc Farmers Ins Co of Oregon Gregory Packaging Inc Western Fire Ins Co Matzner Seaco Ins United Stat Fidelity Guar Co
    No Coverage for Cyber Theft     Two endorsements precluded coverage for cyber theft experienced by the insured.  Midlothian Enterprises, Inc. v. Owners Insurance Company, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30237 (E.D. Va. Feb. 20, 2020). 

        JoAnne Davis received an email from the Midlothian president and shareholder, E. Bryce Powell, asking her to wire money to a specified bank account. As part of her job, Davis would wire money from Midlothian's bank account to other bank accounts when asked to do so by Powell. Little did she know that hackers sent the email from Powell's email account. She complied with the emailed instructions and wired $42,302.46 to a bank account in Alabama. 

        Once the theft was discovered, it was reported to Midlothian's insurer, Owners Insurance Company. Owners denied coverage based on a voluntary parting exclusion of the money and securities endorsement and a forgery or alternation endorsement. Midlothian sued and both parties moved for summary judgment.

        Under the voluntary parting exclusion, Owners did not cover a "[l]oss resulting from [Midlothian's] being induced by any dishonest act to voluntarily part with title to or possession of any property." The court found that the plain language of this exclusion unambiguously included Madlothian's loss. Davis, acting on behalf of Powell, wired money from Midlothian's bank account to the hackers' bank account. Although Powell did not make the request, this did not change the voluntariness of the transfer itself. Further, the exclusion applied to any voluntary parting "induced by any dishonest act," a broad category that included fraud. 

        The forgery or alternation endorsement provided coverage for loss due to forgery or alteration of "any Covered Instrument." "Covered Instruments" were defined as "[c]hecks, drafts, promissory notes, or similar written promises, orders, or directions to pay a sum certain in money." Midlothian contended that the fraudulent email constituted an order or direction to pay money. Owners argued that the "orders or directions to pay" had to be similar to a check, draft or promissory note for the endorsement to apply, and the fraudulent email was not similar to those types of items. 

        The court agreed with Owners. An email from a business owner telling an employee to wire money to a bank account did not have the same form or legal effect as a check, draft, or promissory note. Thus, the email was not a "covered instrument" under the terms of the endorsement.

        Consequently, the court granted Owners' motion for summary judgment and denied Midlothian's motion.

    [Author: Tred Eyerly]

    Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:13:24 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Alabama Insurance Davis Powell Midlothian Tred Eyerly First Party Insurance Joanne Davis Cyber Risk Midlothian Enterprises Inc Owners Insurance Company Bryce Powell Powell Little Owners Insurance Company Owners Madlothian
    Assignment of Claims to Contractor Barred under Iowa Law     The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's denial of the policy holder's assignment to his contractor of claims under his homeowners policy. 33 Carpenters Construction, Inc v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. ,2020 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 15 (Iowa Feb. 14, 2020). 

        The insured's home suffered damage from a hailstorm and windstorm. He entered an agreement with 33 Carpenters under which 33 Carpenters would repair the storm damage to the home in exchange for the insured's proceeds from the homeowners policy with Cincinnati. The assignment stated that the Assignor (homeowner) sold and transferred to the Assignee (33 Carpenters) any and all claims which the homeowner had against Cincinnati. 

        A representative from 33 Carpenters called Cincinnati to report the storm damage to the siding and roof of the home. The homeowner submitted his claim. Cincinnati investigated the home, prepared an estimate for the cost of repairs, and made payment to the homeowner.

        Thereafter, 33 Carpenters contacted Cincinnati to dispute the insurer's estimate of the repair cost and requested a new estimate that would include the cost of replacing all of the home's siding and gutters. Cincinnati responded that it would address any differences directly with its insured rather than 33 Carpenters. 

        33 Carpenters then filed suit against Cincinnati, claiming it had breached the homeowner's policy by "failing to pay 33 Carpenters all benefits due and owing under the policy," that had been assigned to it. Cincinnati's answer denied the claims. Cincinnati also filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment against Cincinnati arguing the assignment was invalid because it effectively allowed 33 Carpenters to act as an unlicensed pubic adjuster in violation of an Iowa statute. Cincinnati file a motion for summary judgment. 33 Carpenters argued that it had entered a valid post loss assignment with the policy holder. The lower granted the motion for summary judgment to Cincinnati. 

        On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed. 33 Carpenters was operating as an unlicensed pubic adjuster in violation of the statute.

        The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed. An assignment contract entered into by a residential contractor acting as an unlicensed public adjuster was void under the statute. 

    [Author: Tred Eyerly]

    Mon, 20 Apr 2020 11:13:13 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Insurance Iowa Cincinnati Iowa Supreme Court Tred Eyerly First Party Insurance Assignment Cincinnati Ins Public Adjuster Iowa Sup LEXIS Carpenters Construction Inc
    Paytm hires Vineet Arora as MD and CEO for Paytm General Insurance ...]]> Thu, 16 Apr 2020 01:57:06 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Travel News Insurance Paytm Arora Industry Moves Vineet Arora Paytm General Insurance Paytm General Insurance Ltd Arora Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Claims Denied     The insurer unsuccessfully sought summary judgment based upon the underlying complaint's allegations of damage caused by faulty workmanship. Barton v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co ., 2020 U.S. District. LEXIS 25943 (D. Ala. Feb. 14, 2020). 

        The Bartons contracted with Stacy Alliston Design and Building, Inc. (Stacy) to build their home, Stacy acted as the general contractor and hired subcontractors to perform work in building the home. After plaintiffs moved into the house, they noticed water issues, particularly a window in the foyer and dormer windows in the attic. Stacy repaired the dormer windows, suggesting that the water leakage from the foyer window was actually due to the dormer windows. After the repairs, water remained in the attic, however.

        The Bartons eventually had to replace their roof which was rotting due to unfixed toe board nail holes, and had to cut into sheetrock to evaluate water damage from the issues with the dormer windows. 

        Thereafter, the Bartons had a home inspection done. It revealed several construction defects and failures to adhere to code requirements by Stacy as well as resulting damages. Stacy failed to correct the deficiencies and the Bartons claimed they incurred significant expense to remedy the problems.

        The Bartons filed suit. Nationwide defended Stacy, but later withdrew its defense. Thereafter, Stacy failed to participate in the case. Summary judgment was issued to the Bartons. Judgment was entered for $900,000.

        The Bartons sued Nationwide to satisfy the $900,000 judgment. Nationwide moved for summary judgment, arguing defective work was not an "occurrence" under Alabama law. The Bartons contended that Stacy performed faulty work that caused additional damage to their newly-built home, including water damage that was so severe as to require them to add a new roof.

        Under Alabama law, faulty workmanship itself was not generally an "occurrence," but faulty workmanship could cause an occurrence. Here, it was undisputed that at least some of the resulting property damage caused by the faulty work could be considered an occurrence under the policy. Therefore, Nationwide was not entitled to summary judgment on lack of an "occurrence."

        Nor was the "your work" exclusion applicable. Under the exclusion, property damage to your work arising out of it or any part of it and not included in the "products-completed operations hazard" was excluded. Property damage under the "products-completed operations hazard" was covered if such damages occurred away from premises the insured owned and arose out of the insured's work, except when the work had not been completed or abandoned. But an endorsement provided that damage to your work caused by subcontractors was not excluded. Therefore, the subcontractor exception could provide coverage for damages which would otherwise be excluded by the "your work" exclusion. Factual issues regarding damages had to be determined by a jury. 

        Finally, the policy included $2,000,000 in "products-completed operations" coverage. The "your work" exclusion applied only if the policy's declarations failed to show any coverage for "products-completed operations." This was not the case here, as Stacy bargained and paid for $2,000,000 in coverage for its "products-completed operations," which nullified the "your work" exclusion. 


    [Author: Tred Eyerly]

    Wed, 15 Apr 2020 11:11:50 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Alabama Insurance Stacy Barton Construction Defects Tred Eyerly Business Risk Exclusions Occurrence Bartons Nationwide Mut Fire Ins Co 2020 U S District LEXIS Stacy Alliston Design Building Inc
    How Much Life Insurance Do You Really Need? How Much Life Insurance Do You Really Need? is a post originally published on: Everything Finance - Everything Finance - Its all about Money!

    Unless you’ve amassed great amounts of wealth and several high-value assets, you probably need some life insurance coverage to help protect your loved ones. But how much life insurance do you really need?

    Determining your coverage amount is one of the first steps to getting properly insured. While some people may opt to just take a shot in the dark and choose an amount that sounds good, this isn’t always the smartest choice.

    It’s important that you determine your insurable need which will help you know how much coverage is just enough. Being over or under-insured is more common than you’d realize. If you’re wondering how much life insurance you need, here are a few questions to ask yourself.

    Do I Have Dependents?

    If you’re single with no kids, you may not need as much life insurance coverage as someone who’s married with two kids. Having dependents makes a huge difference. It means that someone else is depending on your (often times financially) for their care.

    If you were no longer around, that support would not be available to that person or those people. This is where a sizable life insurance benefit can come in handy.

    Even if you have a spouse and no kids, realize that your partner may be depending on you as well. If you are both working together to pay bills and fund your lifestyle, this is something to consider when determining how much life insurance coverage you need.

    RELATED: 7 Reasons Single People Need Life Insurance Too

    How Much Debt Do You Have?

    I don’t know anyone who likes having debt. That said, I know many people don’t want to leave their debt as a burden on their family. Life insurance can help prevent this from happening. If you have a ton of student loan debt or other loans, make sure your life insurance coverage amount is enough to cover these debts.

    For example, if you have are single with no kids but own a home with a $200,000 mortgage and have $50,000 in student loan debt, this should be considered when determining your life insurance coverage amount.

    RELATED: How to Be Content Even When You’re Deep in Debt

    What Is Your Income?

    The larger your income is, the more life insurance you may need. Odds are, your family is accustomed to a certain lifestyle that your income provides.

    One basic rule of thumb is that your life insurance coverage should be equal to 7 to 10 times your annual salary. This is a good starting point, but be sure to include these other factors as well when determining the right amount for you.

    If you're wondering how much life insurance you need, here are a few questions to ask yourself.
    Click To Tweet

    What Are Your Monthly Expenses?

    Everyone should have a budget. If you’re trying to get life insurance, you’ll want to review your budget and see what expenses you have that life insurance can help your family maintain.

    Consider non-negotiable costs like your rent or mortgage payment and other bills. Do your kids have extra-curricular activities? How much are your other insurance premiums like for medical and dental care? Also, look at future goals and what those expenses could look like.

    Do you plan to help your kids with college expenses? What will your childcare costs add up to over the years? How much will home repairs and maintenance cost over time?

    RELATED: Easy Ways to Cut Your Monthly Spending

    Are You a Stay at Home Parent?

    One of the biggest myths out there is that stay-at-home parents don’t need life insurance. Since you’re not earning an income, there’s not much to insure right?

    This is not entirely true. Being a stay-at-home parent is a high-value job even if it doesn’t result in direct compensation. When you think about it, some families have one parent stay home to support the other parent who is working and growing their career.

    It both parents just work all the time, the household and family unit would fall apart. I find it interesting to see that the median annual estimated value for the work of a stay-at-home spouse or mother in 2019 was $178,201.

    If you’re a stay-at-home parent who’s uninsured or under insured, you could be leaving your family financially vulnerable. Think of your partner having to pay for childcare, housekeeping, meals, laundry services and other expenses. It all adds up but having life insurance coverage could help.

    RELATED: Can You Afford to Be a Stay At Home Parent?

    So How Much Life Insurance Do You Really Need?

    After answering some of those questions, you should have a much better idea of how much life insurance you need. Start by adding up all your expenses, liabilities and future anticipated costs. Try to come up with an annual sum. Compare this to your annual income to see if you may need to get more or less coverage.

    The next step is to simply decide how long you want coverage for. Term life insurance is a great option because it’s affordable and easy to obtain.

    Companies like Bestow allow you to get coverage up to $1 million and pay affordable rates. You can get a quote for free on their site so you’ll have more information about locking in a coverage amount you feel comfortable with.

    As someone who’s in their late 20s, Bestow gave me a quote of just $22 per month for $500,000 of coverage over the next 10 years.

    At the end of the day, realize that some life insurance coverage is better than nothing. Term life insurance is flexible where you can always choose a shorter-term then add more coverage once your term is up.

    Do you have life insurance? How did you determine your insurable need?



    How Much Life Insurance Do You Really Need? is a post originally published on: Everything Finance - Everything Finance - Its all about Money!

    Wed, 15 Apr 2020 05:00:41 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Marketing Insurance Life Insurance Everything Finance Everything Finance Reasons Single People Need Life Insurance