Insurance Coverage Update July 2014
Covered in this post:
- National Flood Insurance Act One-Year Statute of Limitations Strictly Applies to Preclude Sandy flood Coverage Claim
- Appellate Division Explains "Hidden" Decay Provision Requires Policyholder to Establish it Neither Knew Nor Should Have Known of Condition
- Contractual Indemnification and Additional Insured Coverage Not Available for Indemnitee/Additional Insured's Own Negligence
NEW JERSEY
Covered in this post:
- National Flood Insurance Act One-Year Statute of Limitations Strictly Applies to Preclude Sandy flood Coverage Claim
- Appellate Division Explains "Hidden" Decay Provision Requires Policyholder to Establish it Neither Knew Nor Should Have Known of Condition
- Contractual Indemnification and Additional Insured Coverage Not Available for Indemnitee/Additional Insured's Own Negligence
NEW JERSEY
| Sandy Flood Coverage - One-Year Statute of Limitations |
| National Flood Insurance Act One-Year Statute of Limitations Strictly Applies to Preclude Sandy Flood Coverage Claim Brusco v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86794 (D.N.J. June 26, 2014) New Jersey District Court Senior Judge Joseph Irenas ruled that the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 preempts state law, allows policyholders to directly sue Standard Flood Insurance Policy issuers, and includes a strict one-year statute of limitations which, in this case, required dismissal of the policyholder's flood insurance claim. The insured's home was damaged by Hurricane Sandy. He subsequently filed a claim under his Standard National Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP), which provides subsidized flood coverage backstopped by the federal Treasury. The insured disagreed with the adjustment of his claim by the SFIP's issuer and therefore brought suit seeking what he viewed as the appropriate payment for his covered property. Read the full summary... |
| Homeowners Coverage - Hidden Decay |
| Appellate Division Explains "Hidden" Decay Provision Requires Policyholder to Establish it Neither Knew Nor Should Have Known of Condition. Romano v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1768 (App. Div. July 18, 2014) The New Jersey Appellate Division interpreted the term "hidden" in a homeowner's policy to require the insurer to demonstrate that damage for which coverage has been sought was not visible and that the insured neither knew nor should have known of the structural damage with sufficient time to allow for repairs before it reached the stage of collapse. Accordingly, the court upheld the insurer's denial of the policyholders' claim for coverage involving the collapse of a defective roof that had been left untreated for at least a year. Read the full summary... |
| Contractual Indemnification/Additional Insured Coverage |
| Contractual Indemnification and Additional Insured Coverage Not Available for Indemnitee/Additional Insured's Own Negligence Moran-Alvarado v. Nev. Court Realty, LLC, 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1552 (App. Div. June 27, 2014) In the context of a slip-and-fall accident that occurred in a strip mall, the Appellate Division explained that an indemnitee/additional insured may only receive indemnification and additional insured coverage to the extent of the indemnitor/policyholder's liability as set forth in the indemnification agreement. A patron of a strip mall tripped on snow or ice close to a grate or manhole about six meters away from the policyholder's store. The patron filed a complaint against the strip mall's owner and the policyholder store. The strip mall owner, in turn, brought a third party claim against the policyholder store for contractual indemnification and against the policyholder's insurer for additional insured coverage. The strip mall owner settled with the patron but did not admit negligence. Read the full summary... |