The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld a verdict of over $2 million against a title insurer for bad faith claims handling. Davis v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co. concerned the purchase of property for construction of a housing development. After another individual claimed to be the owner of the property, the purchaser filed a claim under his title insurance policy. Nearly two years later, the insurer acknowledged a problem with the title and promised resolution of the matter. Over three years later (and nearly five years after the claim was filed), the insurer resolved the claim by purchasing the property
Read More
Monthly Archives March 2015
New Jersey State Court Holds That Flood Sublimits Do Not Apply to Sandy Storm Surge Claims
The Superior Court, Law Division, of Essex County, New Jersey has held that a flood coverage sublimit does not apply to damage arising from Superstorm Sandy. In Public Service Enterprise Group v. Ace Insurance, the utility Public Service Enterprise Group (“PSEG”) was insured under policies with total coverage limits of $1 billion. The policies did not contain a sublimit for named windstorms, but did have a $250 million sublimit for flood damage, as well as a $50 million sublimit for damage within two designated flood zones. In its motion for summary judgment, PSEG contended that the flood sublimits should not
Read More
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Holds That Alleged Delay Does Not Preclude Insurer From Seeking Declaratory Judgment After Timely Reservation of Rights
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has held that absent prejudice to the policyholder, an insurer that timely reserves its right to deny liability coverage is not precluded from seeking a declaratory judgment, even if the declaratory judgment is filed well after the insurer began providing a defense. Nationwide Prop. and Cas. Co. v. Shearer concerned a lawsuit alleging that several policyholders and other property owners discharged sewage and wastewater onto the underlying plaintiff’s neighboring property. The defendant insurer advised all of the policyholders that it would be defending the matter under a reservation of
Read More
New Jersey Supreme Court to Decide Liability of Homeowners’ Associations for Icy Sidewalks
The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether homeowners’ associations and maintenance contractors may be held liable for failing to clear ice and snow from HOA-managed sidewalks. In Qian v. Toll Brothers, the Court is expected to examine two lower court decisions holding that HOAs and contractors were not liable for such injuries. In reaching these decisions, the lower courts relied upon Luchejko v. Hoboken, in which the Supreme Court declined to extend case law holding commercial property owners liable for injuries caused by defective sidewalks to owners of residential properties. Plaintiff’s counsel in Qian contends that liability
Read More
New Jersey Federal Court Dismisses Sandy Homeowners’ Claim as Untimely
In a lawsuit regarding coverage disputes for damage caused by Superstorm Sandy, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has dismissed claims against a homeowners’ insurer for the failure to comply with the policy’s suit limitation clause. The Court In Brown v. State Farm Ins. Co. also dismissed claims against an independent flood insurance adjusting company as preempted by FEMA, as well as claims against an insurer based upon evidence that the flood policy was directly issued by FEMA. Clark & Fox attorney Erin Nulty represented the independent adjusting company in this matter. Brown concerned claims
Read More
Clark & Fox Obtains Dismissal of Coverage Action Pursuant to Suit Limitation Clause
The Supreme Court of Nassau County, New York has granted a Motion to Dismiss filed by Clark & Fox in an insurance coverage action filed in contravention of the subject policy’s suit limitation clause. John Clark, Georgia Foerstner, and Patrick Reilly litigated this matter on behalf of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. Bachir v. Lloyd’s of London concerned a claim regarding a fire loss to a restaurant that was denied due to the late payment of a policy premium. The policy in question contained a suit limitation clause requiring any actions to be brought within two years of the loss.
Read More
New Jersey Supreme Court Prohibits Introduction of Expert Opinions That Contradict Facts
In a unanimous decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court has reaffirmed its prohibition on “net” expert opinions that are contradicted by the facts. Townsend v. Pierre concerns a fatal automobile collision. The defendants included the owner of property at the intersection where the accident occurred, as well as the property lessee. The plaintiff contended that overgrown shrubbery blocked the view of oncoming traffic at the intersection. At her deposition, the defendant driver acknowledged that while her view of the intersection was initially blocked by the shrubbery, she edged forward until she had a clear view while turning. A passenger in
Read More
Federal Court Rejects Wrongful Death Claim Against Municipality Regarding Street Crossing
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has dismissed a wrongful death claim against a municipality, police department, and school district based upon allegations that these parties created dangerous circumstances at a street crossing that led to a minor’s death. Estate of Viola v. Township of Bensalem concerned the death of a high school student while crossing a street on his way to a school bus stop. Among other claims, the student’s parents and his estate brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under a state-related danger theory. In support of this claim, the plaintiffs
Read More
New Jersey Appellate Court Rejects Legal Malpractice Applicant’s Reliance on “Don’t Ask” Policy Regarding Potential Claims
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, has held that an attorney applying for legal malpractice coverage on behalf of his firm had a duty to inquire as to whether his fellow attorneys were aware of potential malpractice claims. Imperium Ins. Co. v. Porwich concerned attorney Philip Feintuch’s application for legal malpractice coverage on behalf of a firm consisting of Mr. Feintuch, his son, and another attorney, Alan Porwich. While Mr. Feintuch operated the firm as a “sole proprietorship,” Mr. Porwich was listed as a partner on the firm’s website. At the time Mr. Feintuch completed the application for malpractice
Read More
