On Wednesday, a federal judge in New York denied FM’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings after finding the Contamination Exclusion in the Factory Mutual policy to be ambiguous as to whether it bars coverage for business interruption losses resulting from communicable disease. The case is Thor Equities, LLC v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co., No. 20 Civ. 3380 (AT) (SDNY). This is a critical decision under the Factory Mutual policy form, which is substantively the same as policies issued by Factory Mutual’s sister company, Affiliated FM Insurance Company. Factory Mutual and Affiliated FM have maintained that the contamination coverages are “exceptions” to this exclusion, with the exclusion precluding coverage for communicable disease loss under other policy coverages. But the ruling validates what policyholders have been arguing – that communicable disease “loss” is covered throughout the Factory Mutual policy, in addition to under the sublimited communicable disease emergency response coverages.

After suffering historically destructive fires in 2018, California endured five of the six largest fires in state history in 2020. Nearly 10,000 fires burned over 4.2 million acres making 2020 the most significant California wildfire season on record. Sadly, a recent study from Stanford University2 predicts that the frequency and potency of these fires will only continue to increase in the coming years and decades, so it is important that homeowners understand what insurance coverage is available for wildfire-related losses.

Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at WBennett@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Nelson may be contacted at RNelson@sdvlaw.com

The Supreme Court of New Jersey found the policies' sublimits were not applicable to reduce coverage for property damage caused by Superstorm Sandy. N.J. Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 2021 N.J. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 27, 2021).

At the time Superstorm Sandy struck New Jersey, the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) had a $400 million multi-layered property policy program through eleven insurers. When NJ Transit sought coverage for water damage to its property caused by the storm, some of the insurers invoked the $100 million flood sublimit and declined to provide coverage up to the policy limit. NJ Transit filed suit for a declaratory judgment. The trial court found that the $100 million flood sublimit did not apply to NJ Transit's claims. Summary judgment was entered for NJ Transit.

Construction projects are ramping up with the start of the new year, and with snow falling throughout many parts of the country, those same projects are being met with more risk. Heavy snow, ice and sub-zero temperatures all create extra obstacles, including increased injury risk, damage to equipment and costly interruptions.

Reduce the unpredictability of winter weather and keep projects moving forward with the following idea starters.

Reprinted courtesy of Ken Alderden, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.

The Washington State Supreme Court recently issued a decision that clarified whether a bicyclist is a “pedestrian” for purposes of personal injury protection (“PIP”) coverage. McLaughlin v. Travelers Commercial Ins. Co., 476 P.3d 1032 (2020).

Reprinted courtesy of Sally S. Kim, Gordon & Rees and Kyle J. Silk-Eglit, Gordon & Rees
Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com
Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com

The court found that the excess carrier had grounds to challenge the primary carrier's allocation of a settlement payment. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 39771 (9th Cir Dec. 18, 2020).

In the underlying case, Underwriters settled on behalf of the insured law firm under a professional liability policy. Scottsdale sued Underwriters for a declaratory judgment that the settlement did not erode the limits. Underwriters counterclaimed seeking equitable contribution. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that: (1) Scottsdale could not challenge Underwriters' settlement payment and the corresponding erosion of policy limits, and (2) Underwriters was not entitled to equitable contribution from Scottsdale.

COVID-19 has exposed long-overlooked frailties in existing insurance and contract terms on costs and delays, provoking a needed conversation. The vulnerabilities came into view within the first months of the pandemic.

Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record and Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record

Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

This article is based on a presentation by the authors (along with Marc L. Penchansky and Felix S. Yelin) at White and Williams LLP’s Virtual Coverage College® on October 22, 2020. Every year, hundreds of insurance professionals come to Philadelphia—this year via our online platform—to participate in a full day of lectures and interactive presentations by White and Williams lawyers and guest panelists about the latest issues and challenges involved in claims handling and insurance litigation. Visit coveragecollege.com for more information and stay tuned for Coverage College® 2021.

With the COVID-19 pandemic and government stay-at-home orders came an unprecedented number of claims for business interruption coverage under first-party property policies—and the inevitable coverage litigation over those claims followed closely behind. As of this writing, we are aware of at least 70 court decisions on motions by insurers to dismiss policyholder lawsuits seeking business interruption coverage for COVID-19 related losses.

Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Elizabeth C. Dolce, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Dolce may be contacted at dolcee@whiteandwilliams.com

The federal district court exercised its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act, declining jurisdiction over a case presenting claims arising from COVID-19. Marc Daniel Hospitality, LLC v. AmGuard Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191956 (D. N.J. Oct 16, 2020).

Plaintiff operated an upscale sit-down restaurant and whiskey bar offering a full menu. In March 2020, state and local orders limited the scope and hours of operations of all restaurants in the state due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequent orders mandated that New Jersey residents remain at home except under certain exceptions. Plaintiff had to temporarily close its restaurant.

More eyes are on the growth and response of the construction industry than ever before. A McKinsey report distinguished construction as one of the industries that has the potential to help both communities and economies recover following COVID-19. The steps construction companies take in the coming months could lead to the industry coming back stronger and more innovative. However, with any rapid transition, comes new risk.

The onset of COVID-19 introduced many new challenges to construction professionals. On top of a shortage of trained construction professionals that has been prevalent in the industry, companies are now facing restrictions on how many workers can be on a jobsite—all leading to a sudden increase in fatigue among workers. There is an increased focus on job safety training and physical fitness, as time off from the job during quarantine likely depleted some workers’ skills. Additionally, from mental distractions due to the stress of the pandemic to additional PPE requirements—there are many new obstacles workers in the construction industry are now facing.

Reprinted courtesy of Gary Clevenger, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.

As we explained in our earlier post, in a decision that could influence how policyholders and insurers around the world address business-interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses, the London High Court recently handed down its much-anticipated judgment in the Financial Conduct Authority’s “Test Case,” The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v. Arch et al. Because the judgment provided that coverage was available for COVID-19 business-interruption losses under most of the policy wordings at issue, it was highly anticipated that the insurance companies at issue would challenge the judgment in a fast-tracked “leapfrog” appeal to the Supreme Court of the U.K., expected to be heard by the end of the year. Yesterday, however, six of the insurance companies subject to the judgment decided not to pursue an appeal in connection with some of the policies, and one of the insurers stated that it would instead begin to make payments where appropriate.

Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Jorge R. Aviles, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Aviles may be contacted at javiles@HuntonAK.com