coverage expert insurance witness

LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Business Interruption Insurance
Headline Business Interruption Insurance Legal News from LexisNexis®

• Policy Provides Coverage For Floods And Sewer Backups, New York Judge Determines
  An insurer is not entitled to summary judgment on a policyholder's loss of business income and rent loss claim caused by flooding because the policy provides coverage for both flood and backup of sewers and drains and does not have any limitations or exclusions with regard to those coverages, a New York federal judge said Aug. 26 (The Hit Factory Inc., f/k/a The Hit Factory of Florida, v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, No. 02-4068, S.D. N.Y.; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19050). Full story on lexis.com
• United Airlines Appeals Federal Court Ruling On Suppression Damage Clause
  An insured airline carrier maintains in an Aug. 5 appellant's brief that a New York federal judge failed to enforce the plain language of its insurance policy, specifically that the suppression damage clause along with the insurance agreement extends coverage for loss of gross earnings, extra expenses and other damages caused by an act of a lawfully constituted authority to suppress the effects of terrorism (United Airlines v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, No. 05-2144-CV, 2nd Cir.; See May 2005, Page 6). Full story on lexis.com
• Policyholder Files Summary Judgment Motion, Says Coverage Afforded For 9/11 Loss
  An insured argues in an Aug. 19 motion for summary judgment that it is entitled to summary judgment on its claims of breach of contract because its insurer's interpretation of the policy's terms in denying the business interruption claim is not correct according to the plain language of the policy and no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the fact that any loss sustained because of the order of evacuation after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is covered by the policy (M. Diane Koken v. Lexington Insurance Co., No. 04-2539, E.D. Pa.; See August 2005, Page 15). Full story on lexis.com
• London Insurers Argue Coverage Claim Constitutes Actual Controversy
  A lawsuit filed by London-based insurers seeking a declaration that coverage does not exist for a $2.1 billion claim for rebuilding part of the World Trade Center should not be dismissed, the insurers argue in a Aug. 31 opposition brief, because the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey insurance does not insure property protected by indemnification agreements or insured by third parties, including those parts of the World Trade Center complex that were leased to entities controlled by Larry Silverstein and other investors (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, et al. v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, No. 05-5239, S.D. N.Y.; See August 2005, Page 8). Full story on lexis.com
• Insured Opposes Dismissal, Says Loss Of Rental Value Is A Covered Loss Under Policy
  An insurer's motion to dismiss breach of contract and bad faith claims alleged by a policyholder seeking coverage for loss of business income and rental value should be denied because loss of rental income is a covered loss according to the terms of the policy at issue, the policyholder asserts in its Aug. 15 opposition to the motion (16 Sutton Place Apartment Corp., v. Admiral Indemnity Co., No. 05-5640, S.D. N.Y.; See August 2005, Page 5). Full story on lexis.com
• Washington Judge Denies Motions For Reconsideration On Equitable Contribution
  A Washington federal judge on Aug. 29 denied Employers Insurance Company of Wausau's motions for reconsideration regarding whether Zurich American Insurance Co. is entitled to equitable contribution from Wausau on a policyholder's claim for loss of business income, extra expenses and physical damages caused by an equipment breakdown because the equipment breakdown manifested itself during Wausau's policy period and Wausau presented no new facts about the breakdown (Zurich American Insurance Co., v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, No. C03-2982, W.D. Wash.; See August 2005, Page 6). Full story on lexis.com
• Adjuster Argues It Was Not Party To Contract Of Insurance At Issue
  Claims for breach of contract and bad faith alleged against an adjuster should be dismissed because the adjuster fulfilled its responsibility in advising and assisting in the adjustment of an insurance claim and did not act in bad faith or breach any contract in doing so, the adjuster argues in an Aug. 1 motion for summary judgment (Optica Inc. v. Metro Public Adjustment Inc., et al., No. 03-5065, D. N.J.; See August 2005, Page 4). Full story on lexis.com
• English Appeals Panel Will Review BI Ruling On Computer Virus
  The England and Wales Court of Appeal has granted an insured's request for appeal of a lower court's ruling that no coverage is due for business interruption losses sustained as a result of a computer virus deliberately programmed onto an insured's computer (Tektrol Ltd., and International Insurance Co. of Hanover Ltd., No. A3/2004/2435, Eng. App.). Full story on lexis.com
• Dismissal Of BI Suit Was Appropriate, Indiana Appeals Panel Affirms
  The Indiana Court of Appeals on Aug. 29 affirmed that dismissal of an insured 's complaint seeking coverage for property damage and business interruption caused by a collapsed roof was appropriate in light of the insured's failure to comply with the trial court's order to mediate the case (Office Environments Inc., d/b/a McKelvey-Kell, v. Lake States Insurance Co., and Harleysv