Here is your weekly Coverage Counsel update for you. Click here to start your FREE subscription
If you are unable to open any of the 'Read the whole entry' links below, please go directly to the Coverage Counsel blog by clicking its banner above.
Thank you for subscribing! If you are receiving this email to confirm your subscription, please click the 'Click here to activate your service' link below. If you know others who may benefit from subscribing to this blog, please forward this email to them and have them click here.
Coverage Counsel - 5 new articles
DC Court Grants Summary Judgment to Commercial Property Insurer on COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim
* * * SPECIAL ALERT * * *
This afternoon the Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to Erie Insurance Exchange, dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for COVID-19-related business income/ interruption losses.
The court concluded:
With both dictionary definitions and the weight of case law supporting Defendant’s interpretation of the term "direct physical loss," Plaintiffs’ additional arguments are unconvincing. First, Plaintiffs argue that because the insurance contract has specific exclusions for "loss of use" under some coverage lines but not for Income Protection coverage, the Court should infer that the Income Protection coverage covers losses such as Plaintiffs’. Plaintiffs' Motion at 13-14. But as already discussed, even if “loss of use” was covered, Plaintiffs would still have to show that the loss of use was a "direct physical loss” similar to those in the cases discussed supra at 5-7. And for the reasons explained in this order, there was no “direct physical loss” to Plaintiffs. Second, Plaintiffs argue that, unlike some similar insurance policies, their policies do not include a specific exclusion for pandemic-related losses....
Another 30 Days in the Toll -- Executive Order No. 202.55 Continues COVID-19 Tolling of Procedural Time Limits Through September 4, 2020
I went to bed last night and woke up before 6:00 this morning hitting F5 on my browser and thinking that today would be the day. The day New York's COVID-19 toll of procedural time limits "for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding, as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state, including but not limited to *** the civil practice law and rules, *** or by any other statute, local law, ordinance, order, rule, or regulation, or part thereof" would be over. The day the title of this morning's blog post would start with "Plus 139".
Someone at the Governor's office, however, was up early this morning, too, and at 6:11 AM posted Executive Order 202.55, which "continue[s] the directives, not superseded by a subsequent directive, made by Executive Order 202 and each successor Executive Order up to and including Executive Order 202.21, and Executive Order ... 202.28, ... 202.38, ... [and] 202.48 ... for another thirty days through September 4, 2020[.]"
If you missed my July 6, 2020 post on what Executive Orders 202.8, 202.14., 202.28 and 202.38 provided, click here. If the COVID-19 toll is not continued again...
AUTO – SUM COVERAGE – TRIGGERGross v. Travelers Ins.
(4th Dept., 7/24/2020)
Gross had an auto policy with Travelers that was written to afford BI and SUM coverage of $300,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. He and his wife were injured when their vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by a nonparty tortfeasor, who was insured by The Hartford under a policy affording BI coverage with limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident.
In other words, the comparative BI coverage limits were:
Per person $300,000 $100,000
Per accident $300,000 $300,000
Gross settled his underlying personal injury claim for the tortfeasor's $100,000 per person policy limit, and his wife settled her claim for $16,000. Gross submitted a SUM claim to Travelers, which denied it on the ground that plaintiff's SUM coverage was not triggered because the tortfeasor's $300,000 in per accident BI coverage was not less than Gross's $300,000 in per accident BI coverage. ...
New York County Supreme Court Grants Insurer's CPLR 3211(A)(1) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Based on Insured's Failure to Submit Timely Proof of Loss
PROPERTY – BURST WATER PIPE-CAUSED WATER LOSS – PROOF OF LOSS REQUEST – MOTION TO DISMISSStein v. National General Ins. Co.
(Sup. Ct., NY Co., 6/9/2020)
Just when you thought you understood the "documentary evidence" basis of a CPLR 3211(a) pre-answer motion to dismiss, this decision issues.
In February 2018, Stein's Manhattan apartment sustained water damage from a burst water pipe. National General investigated the loss and on April 15, 2019, paid Stein $30,519.82 for his loss. Unhappy with the amount of the loss payment, Stein hired a public adjuster, who inspected the loss and estimated the claim at $404,977.78. National General declined to enter into an appraisal and, on July 9, 2019, sent a demand to Stein for a signed sworn proof of loss to be provided within 60 days.
On October 24, 2019, National General wrote to Stein, denying coverage for his claim based on various grounds, including Stein's failure to submit a signed sworn proof of loss within 60 days. Stein brought this action on February 18, 2020, alleging breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
In lieu of answering the complaint, National General moved on March 6,...
The Unopposed Loss -- Court Denies Declaratory Judgment to No-Fault Insurer Based Solely on Default of Non-Answering Defendants
NO-FAULT – HIT-AND-RUN – AFFIRMATIVE ACTION – DEFAULT JUDGMENT – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – INJUNCTIVE RELIEFAmeriprise Ins. Co. v. Kim
(2nd Dept., 7/29/2020)
We've run into this before.
Your insurer client brings a global affirmative action against all carbon-based life-form claimants and their health care(less) assignee-providers spawned from a single, reported motor vehicle accident, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. All of the defendants are served, but most if not all them don't answer or move against the complaint. Your client makes a motion for a default judgment against the non-answering defendants, who don't appear and oppose the motion. Your client proves up good service of the summons and complaint, the non-answering defendants' default, and the facts constituting your client's claim.
Mark it down as a win, right? Wrong.
In AFFIRMING Supreme Court's denial of Ameriprise's default judgment motion, the Second Department reminded:
"A plaintiff seeking leave to enter a default judgment must file proof of proper service of the summons and the complaint, the defendant's default, and the facts constituting the claim" (Global Liberty Ins. Co. v...