Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog

Insurance companies offer and sell endorsements that can be purchased to fill coverage gaps. Policyholders pay additional premiums because they believe they are obtaining protection against specific risks when they purchase these endorsements. Yet a recent case, Express Jewelry Enterprises, Inc. v. National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, 1 demonstrates how that promise o...

I recently wrote about a controversial lawsuit involving anti-public adjuster endorsements being used by surplus lines insurers in The Insurance Industry’s New Playbook: Hire a Public Adjuster, and You May Lose Coverage. The case is pending in federal court in Massachusetts. 1 The insurer, Velocity Risk Underwriters, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and the …<...

Insurance lawyers hear the term “lowballing” all the time. Public adjusters say carriers are lowballing claims. Policyholders complain that insurers are lowballing estimates. Defense lawyers cringe when the word appears in a brief because it sounds accusatory before the first witness is ever sworn. But where did the term “lowballing” actually come from? This question …

A year ago, I wrote about the trial court decision in 3371 Reading, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Group, in Don’t Let Protective Safeguards Become Your Policy’s Poison Pill. I warned policyholders that protective safeguards endorsements can become poison pills hidden deep within builders risk and commercial property policies. The federal district court had ruled against the...

The Oklahoma Supreme Court now has before it one of Oklahoma’s most consequential insurance cases. 1 What began as a dispute over a hail-damaged roof has evolved into a battle over the power of the Oklahoma Attorney General, the authority of the Insurance Commissioner, and whether allegations of systemic claims misconduct can transform a private bad …

The pos...