Articles Posted in General Hurricane Dispute Information

Published on: | By

Governments traditionally were immune from lawsuit. That has changed. In certain circumstances, governments may be held liable for the damage they cause. A coulee flooded homes in Lake Charles after Hurricane Rita, although the area is protected by a drainage district that operates pumps and pipes to ensure drainage. The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed a jury award against the drainage district in Bordelon v. Gravity Drainage District No. 4 of Ward 3 of Calcasieu Parish, No. 10-1318 (La. Ct. App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11).

Drainage district employees typically stayed in pump houses during hurricanes, but in July 2005, Louisiana state officials determined that no evacuation site in Calcasieu Parish could withstand a category 4 or 5 hurricane. The drainage district has automated pumps run by electricity, but if the power went out, the diesel-fueled backup pumps required human operation. Hurricane Rita was expected to hit land as a category 4 or 5 hurricane. The district decided to allow its employees to evacuate with their families to Opelousas, Ville Platte, and Lafayette. The whole area south of Interstate 10 in Lake Charles was a part of the evacuation.

Rita unexpectedly weakened to category 3 when it made landfall on Friday, September 24, 2005. Electrical power was wiped out across a wide area. The drainage district’s electric pumps at Pithon Coulee stopped at 9 p.m. No one was in the pump house to start the diesel pumps. When residents returned the next morning, their homes were fine, but the coulee waters were rising. Drainage district employees had yet to be recalled. The houses began flooding from the rising coulee waters after 3 p.m. Saturday. Early on Sunday, the district workers returned. They turned on the pumps at 8:30 a.m. By noon, the coulee was below flood stage.

Twenty-four homeowners sought damages from the district because it failed to plan a way to automate the diesel pumps and because its decisions during Hurricane Rita resulted in flooding. The district argued it was protected by governmental immunity under Louisiana Revised Statutes. A jury awarded the homeowners $1,570,219.60, although it recognized that the liability of the district’s insurer, American Alternative Insurance Corporation, was limited to $1 million. The drainage district and its insurer appealed.

Courts strictly interpret immunity statutes to limit their reach. Two statutes may protect the district. The Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act provides immunity when a government is “engaged in any homeland security and emergency preparedness activities” as a part of complying with the Act. An unpublished court of appeal decision persuasively limits immunity to actions taken during an emergency, but not before. Based on that decision, the jury decided against the drainage district because it failed to have a plan in place before the hurricane’s forecasted arrival. The court of appeal agreed. “A failure to plan for an emergency is not an emergency preparedness activity under the statutes conferring immunity for such activities.” The district was not immune for not having a plan to keep pumps running when the pump houses were not staffed and power was out.

Louisiana state and local governments also are not liable “based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform their policymaking or discretionary acts when such acts are within the course and scope of their lawful powers and duties.” Immunity exists for policymaking or acts for which a choice is acceptable within the government’s delegated powers. If the act is “not reasonably related to the legitimate governmental objective for which the policymaking or discretionary power exists,” or was done criminally or in some way intentionally, immunity does not apply.

The Louisiana statute is patterned after the Federal Tort Claims Act. A two-part test determines if immunity applies. Did the government employee have discretion, a choice, or did law require the employee to follow a certain course of conduct? If a specific action is mandatory, no immunity applies. If the employee has a choice, was that discretion “grounded in social, economic or political policy”? If not, the government may be liable. Louisiana has adopted the federal test for the state governmental immunity statute.

The court of appeal recognized that planning is an act of discretion, and ensuring employee safety above concerns to protect property “is clearly within the discretion of the district.” But, automating the diesel pumps had never been considered, although it would cost only $40,000 and the money was available. By statute, “the drainage district shall make adequate provision for the drainage of all lands and property affected thereby.” The district was required to provide adequate drainage of all property. The failure to consider a feasible alternative to ensure compliance with a statutory mandate prevented immunity for the effects of not automating the pumps. The court of appeal affirmed the district court jury verdict.

If you believe you have been harmed by a government, it is hard to know what to do. Government duties come from statutes and regulations, and governments may be protected from lawsuits. But not always. A lawyer will be able to review your claim and determine the government’s authority and potential liability.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

When one is successful on a claim against an insurance company the payment of the claim is expected to be prompt. Any delay in payment could result in the court imposing a penalty against the insurance company. In most, if not all, cases this penalty takes the form of court costs and attorney’s fees. But if an insurance company challenges a policy claim in court, and then loses, does that time when payment was refused constitute delay? The answer to this question is ‘it depends.’

In Louisiana Bag Co. v. Audubon Indemnity Co., the court held that if an insurer errs in interpreting its own insurance contract, then the insurance company will be held liable for the delay in payment resulting from the trial. This delay justifies the incurrence of penalties for attorney’s fees. If, however, the policy dispute revolves around facts rather than contract interpretation, then the “timely payment” provision is stayed during the trial. This was the situation of Maxley v. Universal Casualty Co. where Maxley’s car insurance policy through Casualty covered loss from both theft and fire. When Maxley’s car was stolen and set on fire, he filed for his claim. However, Maxley had left his car unlocked with the key in it. The policy through Casualty had an exception that nullified any claim if there was no evidence of forcible entry. The issue went to court with Casualty claiming it owed nothing under the policy because the theft was not through a forcible entry, and Maxley contesting payment was due under the fire provision of the policy rather than the theft. Maxley, in essence, argued that the exclusion provision for no evidence of forced entry was irrelevant because his car would have been recovered if it had not been for the fire.

The court found for Maxley, who then sought attorney’s fees for Casualty’s failure to make timely payment. The Third Court of Appeal upheld the denial of Maxley’s claim, stating that Maxley’s reliance on Louisiana Bag was misplaced. While Louisiana Bag relied on policy interpretation, Maxley’s case relied on a true disputation of the facts. It would be senseless to require the insurance company to pay the claim only to the have the claim payment rescinded if the facts were found in favor of the insurance company. This finding upholds efficiency in the industry as it is easier to withhold payment until truly due than it is to always make payment, then try to recoup it if made erroneously.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

It is well settled under Louisiana law that insurers owe a duty of “good faith and fair dealing” to their customers. Each insurance company is required to adjust claims in a fair and prompt manner and to make reasonable efforts to settle claims when possible. La. R.S. 22:1973 establishes that damages may be awarded against an insurance company that fails to meet this duty. One category of wrongdoing includes:

“Failing to pay the amount of any claim due any person insured by the contract within sixty days after receipt of satisfactory proof of loss from the claimant when such failure is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.”

The statute also permits a wronged insured to collect penalties from the insurer “in an amount not to exceed two times the damages sustained or five thousand dollars, whichever is greater.” The purpose of this law is to discourage insurers from failing to live up to the promises they make to their customers in their insurance policies and for which the customers pay premiums.

On October 27, 2004, Carl Guidry and his granddaughter were driving in Guidry’s pickup truck. They were rear-ended by Amber Guidry (no relation) and Guidry’s truck was knocked forward. Guidry suffered from neck and back pain following the accident. Two weeks later, on November 11, 2004, Guidry and his granddaughter were again rear-ended while driving in Guidry’s truck, this time by an SUV driven by Evelyn Smith. Guidry experienced further neck and back pain, as well as shoulder pain, after the second collision. Guidry sued both Amber Guidry and Evelyn Smith, and also sued his own uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) carrier, Progressive. Guidry settled with Amber Guidry’s insurance carrier in the first accident for the policy limits of $10,000. At trial, the jury found that Guidry did not suffer damages in the first accident, but found that he did suffer damages in the second accident; they jury awarded Guidry medical expenses in the amount of $19,860 and general damages of $10,000. The jury also found that Progressive had been “arbitrary and capricious” in handling Guidry’s claims for general damages and medical expenses from both accidents; specifically, Progressive never tendered any money to Guidry for either claim. Accordingly, it awarded Guidry $50,000 for Progressive’s breach of duty and $10,000 in attorney fees. Then the trial judge awarded Guidry $100,000 in statutory penalties against Progressive.

Progressive appealed the penalty award to the Third Circuit. The court upheld the award after a review of Progressive’s handling of Guidry’s claims. Progressive admitted receiving proper notice of Guidry’s accidents in September, 2006 but disputed that Guidry could establish the amount of his damages. The general rule for UM carriers is that if the insured can show that “he was not at fault, that the other driver was uninsured or underinsured, and that he was in fact damaged,” the UM insurer cannot avoid liability just because the insured is unable to prove the exact extent of his general damages. Instead, the insurer “must tender the reasonable amount due as a sign of its good faith and its willingness to comply with the duties imposed upon it under the insurance policy.” See McDill v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. The tendered amount would not be to settle the case, but to show good faith. Once the good-faith tender is made, the insurer must take “substantive and affirmative steps” evaluate the claim. In this case, Progressive opened its claim file in September, 2006 but did not depose Guidry’s treating physician and orthopedist until June, 2008–nearly two years later. It failed to pay Guidy any money towards the $3,500 in costs to repair his truck. Also, Progressive failed to tender any of the medical payment coverage ($5,000 per accident) included in Guidry’s policy, even though it ample evidence that injuries had resulted from the second accident. Guidry finally had shoulder surgery some four years after the second accident to relieve his debilitating pain, which was paid for by Medicare. Thus, the court concluded that “the jury was not unreasonable in finding that Progressive breached its duty to Mr. Guidry by failing to pay the amount of any claim within sixty days and by failing in its duty to timely investigate the accidents.”

What should have been a simple resolution for Mr. Guidry turned into a four-year-long nightmare of shoulder pain because his insurance carrier mishandled and delayed the payment he was entitled to receive under his policy. This case shows the value of an experienced accident attorney who can advocate on behalf of an injured victim.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

Those living in low-lying areas and near rivers often seek, and often obtain, flood insurance. Many of the policies granted come from insurance providers that have opted into the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Under this program, property owners are issued flood insurance through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The federal government, in an effort to expand the NFIP, created the Write Your Own program. These policies provide identical coverage as regular NFIP insurance, except they are administered through local insurance companies. These insurance companies increase community awareness of the NFIP in return for expenses related to claims written and processed. FEMA retains all responsibility for claim losses.

These policies, like any other insurance policy, are only active for the policy period. However, once the policy period has expired, FEMA and Write Your Own insurers typically extend a grace period of thirty days. This means that if the policy holder pays a renewal premium within thirty days of the policy’s expiration, the renewal will be retroactive, essentially covering the gap between the policy expiration and the payment of the premium. If the policy holder fails to pay the renewal premium before the grace period ends, then the policy terminates at its original expiration date and no grace period claims can be processed under it.

This retroactive policy renewal was the issue in Campo v. Allstate Insurance Company. Here, Campo’s flood insurance expired and Allstate sent him notice of the expiration along with the option of retroactive renewal. During this grace period Campo’s property was damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Due to the excessive number of claims arising from Katrina, FEMA increased NFIP grace periods from thirty days to ninety. Campo contacted Allstate and procured an insurance check to cover his living expenses. No further discussion of policy renewal took place. Campo’s ninety day grace period expired without any renewal premium payment. Therefore, when Campo filed his insurance claim it was denied as the policy was not retroactively renewed to cover the damage caused during the grace period. Campo sued Allstate claiming that Allstate had negligently misrepresented the status of his policy.

The only way to succeed on a claim of negligent misrepresentation by an insurance company is to show that the insurance company had a legal duty to supply correct information, that that duty was breached, and that damages resulted from justifiable reliance on that misrepresentation. In most cases, as in Campo’s, the third prong of this test is the most difficult to satisfy. The reasoning behind this is simple: policy holders have access to correct information through the policy contract that they possess. Thus, courts may find damages flowed from an unjustified reliance on the misstatement because the policy itself is clear.

Yet, under this test, Campo succeeded on his damages claim in district court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, on the other hand, reversed in favor of Allstate. The reasoning behind this decision is that Campo was fully aware that he was required to pay a premium in order to obtain the retroactive renewal of his policy. In conversations with Allstate, Campo failed to discuss the renewal, and, in addition, the check provided by Allstate during the grace period was not a promise that it would pay Campo’s claim. In short, the court viewed Campo as being responsible for knowing the terms of the insurance policy he held. Insurance policy holders have access to the terms of their policy and are therefore in a position to familiarize themselves with relevant provisions.

Since much of Louisiana is prone to flooding, it is important to protect yourself by obtaining flood insurance. However, once a policy is issued, be sure to read through the terms and know the conditions of renewal. When a policy expires, it is the policy holder’s responsibility to take action for renewal.

Insurance disputes such as these are complex and best left to an experienced practicing attorney.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

U.S. Court of Appeals affirms that maritime insurance policy covering collision on the Mississippi River included defense costs in coverage limits. In a case of insurance contract interpretation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that defense costs were included in the policy limits set by a maritime insurance policy. The court admitted that this interpretation erodes policy limits.

Gabarick v. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Nos. 09-30549, 09-30809 (5th Cir. 8/10/11) arose out of a collision on the Mississippi River. Laurin Maritime and related parties owned the ocean-going tanker M/V Tintomara. In the early hours of July 23, 2008, the ship collided with a barge carrying heavy fuel oil. The impact split the barge in half, and heavy oil spilled into the river. American Commercial Lines, LLC (barge owner) owned the tug, barge, and cargo, but D.R.D. Towing Co., LLC (towing company) provided the crew that ran the tug pushing the barge. It’s the towing company’s insurance policy that raised issues of policy interpretation.

A protection and indemnity (or P&I) policy issued by Indemnity Insurance Company of North America (insurer) covered the towing company. The policy is a standard maritime policy, except for modifications the parties made to the SP-23 Form. The policy provided a single occurrence limit of liability of $1 million, with a $15,000 deductible. The towing company and the barge owner demanded that the insurer indemnify and defend them. Not knowing which of the numerous parties rightfully should receive the insurance proceeds, the insurer deposited $985,000 into the registry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for the court to make the decision. That court held that the insurer’s deposit for the interpleader action was proper and that the funds would reimburse defense costs. The barge owner and Laurin Maritime appealed.

The appellate court explained that Louisiana law forms the basis for the court’s independent review of the District Court’s interpretation of the insurance policy. Even before it entered into this analysis, the court cautioned that marine insurance commentators agree that defense costs are typically included within such insurance policy limits. The P&I insurer usually has no duty to defend: indemnification is the basis for coverage. Louisiana law agrees. Legal expenses incurred in defending a liability covered by an insurance policy are treated as part of the overall claim. Payment of legal expenses falls within the policy limits. Because the barge owner is a sophisticated commercial entity, it bore the burden that this policy should be interpreted differently.

The collision triggered coverage under the policy’s collision and towers liability and protection and indemnity coverage. Although the policy was mostly standard, a “manuscript provision” (modification) added a collision and towers liability clause. The standard language for the relevant coverage stated, “Liability hereunder in respect to any one accident or occurrence is limited to the amount hereby insured.” The court found no ambiguity.

The barge owner argued that the policy was ambiguous. It pointed to the modification language that the insurer “will also pay the costs which the Insured shall thereby incur or be compelled to pay.” The barge owner argued that Exxon Corporation v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 129 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 1997) had interpreted the clause to exclude defense costs from the policy cap. This argument did not work for three reasons. The cited case involved personal injury, not collision, placing the “also pay” language in the P&I policy, unlike the towing company’s policy. Second, the claims mentioned by the barge owner are excluded from the collision coverage. “[A]ny recovery must come under the standard P&I section of the policy,” the court explained. Finally, any ambiguity from the clause, were it applicable, would not extend to the relevant coverage sections of the standard policy language because the modification was a separate contract entered into by sophisticated parties.

The court summarized that “the policy is clear that defense costs were intended to be included within the policy limits. This P&I policy is unambiguously written against the backdrop of traditional principles of maritime law that defense costs erode P&I limits of liability.”

The barge owner also appealed the District Court’s denial of insurance proceeds. The appellate court explained, “The district court did not permanently deny funds to the barge owner but rather stated, ‘payment to [the barge owner] at this time would not be equitable.'” (Alterations in original.) Therefore, the District Court’s decision was not a final judgment and could not be appealed.

Coverage limits and defense from an insurer are crucial issues in evaluating a claim when you have been harmed. Insurance policies differ between consumer and business and by industry. This case demonstrates the specificity of insurance coverage. A lawyer independent of your insurance company can help you understand your policy, its coverage limits, and the extent of an insurer’s duty to defend.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

Previously on the Insurance Dispute blog, we have reviewed cases where the court analyzied various policy provisions that are intended to limit the scope of the insurer’s coverage. One recent example was a clause in a hazard insurance policy that limited the insurer’s responsibility for certain economic damages that resulted from a covered loss. Coverage limitations are common features in other types of policies, as well. For instance, a workers compensation insurance policy will typically include provisions that define the type of injuries that fall under the policy and specify the timeframe in which claims must be made. The recent case of Continental Holdings, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. offers an example of a court’s analysis of such a provision. Continental Holdings purchased a Workers Compensation/Employers’ Liability Policy from Liberty Mutual on October 1, 1964. The policy’s term ended on July 1, 1973. It covered two kinds of work-related injuries: bodily injury “by accident,” and bodily injury “by disease.” The policy specifically excluded coverage for claims of “bodily injury by disease unless prior to thirty-six months after the end of the policy period written claim is made or suit is brought against the insured for damages because of such injury or death resulting therefrom.” In 2009, a group of former employees, certified as a class, sued Continental for hearing loss caused by their long-term exposure to industrial noise while working for the company. In their complaint, the employees alleged that the hearing loss “was painless, and occurred gradually over a long period of time as a result of their continuous long term exposure to hazardous industrial noise at [Continental’s] facility.” Continental filed suit against Liberty Mutual seeking indemnity for the employees’ claims in the hearing loss suit, arguing that the policy purchased in 1964 covered the workers’ hearing loss. Liberty Mutual filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that it was not required to indemnify Continental because noise-induced hearing-loss was not an “accident” and therefore was subject to the 36-month exclusion under the policy. The district court granted Liberty Mutual’s motion, and Continental appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied on Louisiana law to guide its analysis. At the time the policy was taken out, the Louisiana Worker’s Compensation Act (“LWCA”) was in effect and was incorporated by reference in the policy. The LWCA included the following definition of “accident”: “an unexpected or unforeseen event happening suddenly or violently with or without human fault and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury.” Continental asserted that the industrial noise the workers were exposed to created an “objective injury” and therefore fell under Louisiana’s then-existing statutory definition of “accident.” It backed up its position with the affidavit of Dr. Robert Dobie, which explained that noise-induced hearing loss can be measured at the moment a noise is heard through an audiogram test. The court noted, however, that “the vast majority of Louisiana cases,” including one that held “gradual hearing loss resulting from occupational noise exposure … cannot meet the definition of an ‘accident’ under any version of the LWCA,” reach[es] a contrary conclusion.” The court observed that the Continental workers did not claim that a single event caused their hearing loss. Nor did they experience any symptoms during the period of time that the Liberty Mutual policy was in effect. These facts were contrary to the court’s own prior holding that Louisiana’s definition of “accident” requires “at least … some identifiable event or incident within the policy term where the employee can demonstrate a palpable injury.” By way of example, the court recalled a case that involved “a sudden, acute, and identifiable injury during the period of employment.” The employee-plaintiff complained of ear pain immediately after exposure to noise, requested and was denied a transfer, and then over the course of a few months experienced nearly total deafness. The court concluded, therefore, that the gradual, noise-induced hearing loss that the Continental workers suffered was “not an ‘accident’ under the LWCA.” Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s finding that the workers’ injuries must be classified as “bodily injury by disease,” thus triggering the 36-month exclusion.

It is important to note that the Fifth Circuit’s decision did not necessarily create a negative outcome for the workers themselves. Indeed, their suit (filed in state court) was merely put on hold until the conclusion of this action, which only served to determine that Liberty Mutual would not be responsible for any damages due the workers if they ultimately prevailed against Continental.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

When an insurance company provides coverage to a business, the contract typically includes a duty to defend the inured business against any coverage claims. If an insurer refuses to provide the insured with claim defense, then the insured business may sue the insurance company for indemnification of defense fees. However, a question often arises as to how much an insurance company is required to pay for indemnification. This issue was brought to light in a recent Supreme Court of Louisiana case when insurance company Continental was sued for indemnification by a manufacturing company, T&L.

When an insurance company is sued for indemnification, several options exist for a defense. One defense, which was used in the Continental case, is policy exclusion. Under this defense, the insurance company claims that the individuals seeking damages from the insured business fall outside the policy coverage and thus outside the realm requiring the insurer to defend the insured business. In the Continental case, for example, Continental refused to defend T&L against claims brought by T&L employees because certain time frames of T&L’s policy did not cover injuries sustained by employees.
One way to defeat a policy exclusion defense is to prove that the insurance company waived its right to the defense. Typically, a waiver occurs when an individual, or in this case a company, has an existing right, knowledge of its existence, and an intention to relinquish that right. However, even if there is no intention to give the right up, conduct that creates a reasonable belief that the right has been relinquished will constitute a waiver of that right. Therefore, if an insurance company undertakes a defense on behalf of its insured against claims that the insurance company knows do not fall under the insurance policy, and does not reserve its rights to withdraw defense, then it is likely that the insurance company has waived its right to a policy exclusion defense. This means that if the insurance company was to back out of the defense it would be held liable for indemnification to the insured because the insured relied on the insurer’s actions to defend them.

However, it is important to make a distinction between waiver and breach of duty to defend in the insurance context. While a waiver involves an insurer relinquishing its rights to deny coverage under a policy, a breach of a duty to defend expressly denies coverage under a policy. In essence, the two are complete opposites. If an insurance company waives its right to deny coverage, then the insurance company, if they withdraw from defense, is likely to be forced to indemnify the insured for all defense costs for all claims. On the other hand, as was the holding in the Continental case, a breach of a duty to defend falls under contract law, and would find the insurance company liable for reasonable defense costs. In addition, if the breach was made in bad faith, statutory penalties will be imposed upon the insurer. Liability for such claims is also allocated on a pro rata basis between all insurance policies. This lowers the costs incurred upon insurers, which, for Continental, decreased from over four million dollars to just shy of two-hundred thousand dollars.

If your business is at odds with an insurance company over policy claim defense, be sure to consider whether or not the insurance company has waived its right to a policy exclusion defense. If the insurer has, then it is likely that the insured will be able to recoup costs paid to all claimants. If, on the other hand, the insurer has simply breached a duty to defend, you may only be able to recoup reasonable defense costs.

Even if you find this article helpful, insurance law is a complicated matter that should not be approached without consultation from a practicing insurance attorney.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

In a prior post, we examined the case of Berk-Cohen Associates, L.L.C. v. Landmark American Insurance Company, which concerned a dispute over an insurer’s coverage of lost revenue suffered by the Forest Isle Apartments complex in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The district court found that the lost revenue experienced by the apartment’s owner, Berk-Cohen, was covered under the policy issued by Landmark. Based on this finding, it assessed Landmark penalties and attorney’s fees for its misinterpretation of its policy and refusal to pay Berk-Cohen for the lost revenue that it deemed covered under the policy. Landmark appealed the assessment (along with the district court’s finding on the coverage issue); although the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding as to insurance coverage, it reversed on the issue of the penalty.

Under Louisiana law, an insurance company generally has 30 days after receiving a demand letter and written proof of loss to pay a claim. A court can assess a penalty against an insurer that fails to pay within 30 days “when such failure is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:1892(B)(1). The penalty is calculated as 50 percent of difference between the amount actually paid and the amount due. Attorney’s fees and costs can also be part of the assessment. No penalty is available “when there is a reasonable and legitimate question as to the extent and causation of a claim.” In the case of Louisiana Bag Co. v. Audubon Indemnity Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court assessed penalties against an insurer that failed to pay the uncontested portion of a claim and refused coverage for a loss that was clearly included in the policy. The court found that “no reasonable uncertainty existed as to the insurer’s obligation to pay,” and so its position was “arbitrary and without probable cause.”

The Fifth Circuit concluded, however, that the Forest Isle Apartments case was unlike the situation in Louisiana Bag. “The scope of the flood exclusion,” reasoned the court, “with its reference to all damage ’caused directly or indirectly’ by flooding, is susceptible to different interpretations.” Landmark, therefore, was “neither arbitrary nor capricious” in refusing to pay Berk-Cohen for lost revenue based on the favorable business conditions brought on by hurricane flooding. The court also found it important that Landmark had already paid out more than $20 million on undisputed portions of Berk-Cohen’s claims. In light of this, Landmark’s dispute over the lost revenue claim could reasonably be considered a “good-faith error” in interpreting the policy. In addition, the court noted that under Louisiana jurisprudence, an unfavorable judgment does not necessarily call for the statutory penalty. Thus, the court reversed the district court’s assessment of penalties against Landmark.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

In insurance, an assignment is the transfer of legal rights under an insurance policy to another party. The legality of assignments became a major issue in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. During this period, the federal government, in an effort to aid rebuilding efforts, issued money through the Road Home program to homeowners who held underinsured properties. In exchange, these homeowners were required to assign their rights to insurance claims under their policies to the the state of Louisiana. The purpose of this assignment was to prevent homeowners from fraudulently receiving duplicate payments. However, the program incentivized insurance companies to estimate damages too low, which in turn forced homeowners to take the higher amount offered through the Road Home program.

The shortfall created within the Road Home program forced the state of Louisiana to bring suit against insurance companies through the policy rights assigned to the state by homeowners. In essence, the state sought to recoup actual insurance claim damages that the homeowners were rightfully owed had they not opted into the Road Home program. Though most, if not all, of the homeowner insurance policy contracts contained an anti-assignment clause, the state maintained that it had the right to post-loss assignment. Therefore, it is critical to distinguish between a pre-loss assignment and a post-loss assignment.

A pre-loss assignment occurs when one transfers a legal right under an insurance policy to another before the injury or loss occurs. An example of a type of pre-loss assignment is found in cases when life insurance is assigned to a bank as collateral for a loan. Here, the assignment has occurred before the loss, in this case the death of the original policy holder, and any benefits that accrue at the time of death are used to repay the bank first. These types of assignments typically require consent from the insurer, but are usually barred by anti-assignment clauses.

A post-loss assignment, on the other hand, is the transfer of a legal right under an insurance policy to another party after the injury or loss occurs. Post-loss assignments frequently give the third party transferee the ability to file a claim against the insurance company for any loss accrued by the original policy holder. Many insurance companies try to block such assignments through broad anti-assignment clauses found in policy contracts. Such clauses were found in most Katrina and Rita policies, and insurance companies pointed to these sections in an attempt to avoid paying actual damage costs homeowners thought they rightfully assigned to the state.

While national jurisprudence holds that pre-loss anti-assignment clauses are valid in favor of contract law and public policy, anti-assignment clauses related to post-loss assignments are held to be invalid. The reasoning behind this difference primarily lies with public policy considerations. A pre-loss assignment, for example, may increase the risk beyond the point that the insurance company had originally contracted for and with a party the insurance company had not originally contracted with. A post-loss assignment, on the other hand, simply assigns an accrued right to payment after a loss has already occurred. There is no change in risk as the loss has already occurred, and since payment is to be made it matters none to whom the payment is made.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana holds that such public policy concerns are better suited for the legislature. However, the Court does state that clauses prohibiting post-loss assignment must be written in clear and unambiguous language. If the language in the policy contract is unclear, then, in accordance with laws regarding contracts of adhesion, the language will be construed against the insurance company and in favor of the insured. If you have entered into a contract with an insurance company and are looking to assign your rights under the policy to a third party, turn to the language in the contract itself. Though there is not specific set of words or test used to determine “clear and unambiguous,” your own judgment is a good starting point in determining whether or not you have the right to assignment.

Though your own judgment is an excellent place to start, insurance law is very complicated and is best suited for a practicing attorney.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

Insurance policies routinely include provisions that are intended to limit the scope of the insurer’s coverage in the event of a claim by the policyholder. For instance, most homeowner’s insurance policies exclude coverage for fire damage that results from the policyholder’s deliberate arson. Commercial premises insurance policies, which commonly also include coverage for loss of business income, can carry similar limitations. The recent case of Berk-Cohen Associates, L.L.C. v. Landmark American Insurance Company in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit provides an instructive example of how insurance policies are “construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts” by the courts.

Berk-Cohen Associates, L.L.C., as the owner of the Forest Isle Apartments in New Orleans, maintained an insurance policy to cover the complex with the Landmark American Insurance Company. The policy covered property damage but specifically did not cover losses at Forest Isle “caused directly or indirectly by Flood.” In the case of a covered cause of loss, such as wind damage or fire, the policy insured Berk-Cohen against both the property damage and the resulting lost business income. However, the scope of the income protection excluded any income that would have been earned directly as a consequence of any “favorable business conditions caused by the impact of the Covered Cause of Loss on customers or on other businesses.” In other words, Berk-Cohen could not profit by a widespread calamity that was also the source of a property damage claims. Forest Isle suffered a series of misfortunes, including a tornado, a vehicle strike, and–most significant–damage from Hurricane Katrina. Following the hurricane, Landmark compensated Berk-Cohen for damages caused by wind but not flood. Concerning Berk-Cohen’s claim for lost business income, Landmark argued that it was not responsible for the increased rents that resulted from the extensive flooding around the city because flood damage was excluded from the policy. Accordingly, Landmark “declined to increase its calculation of lost business income to the extent that any foregone income arose from flooding.” Berk-Cohen initiated litigation and, following a bench trial, the district court held that, notwithstanding the flood damage exclusion in the policy, Landmark should have considered the business conditions attributable to flooding in other buildings when computing the business income that Berk-Cohen lost as a result of the wind damage to Forest Isle. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s opinion. It noted that the “Covered Cause of Loss” that gave rise to Berk-Choen’s property damage claim was wind. Consequently, the policy language prohibited Berk-Cohen from recovering for lost business income as a result of wind damage suffered by customers or other competing businesses. But, “any increase in customers’ demand or reduction in competitors’ supply due to flooding at other properties is a permissible factor in calculating lost business income.” (Emphasis supplied.) The court refused to permit Landmark to exclude coverage for flood damage by the policy language while at the same time invoking the same source of damage to reduce Berk-Cohen’s business income recovery. To do so would “extend[] the flood exclusion beyond its function,” since the policy specifically permits the income calculation to consider “favorable business conditions.” Accordingly, the court “decline[d] to use a limitation on coverage”–that is, flooding–“to alter the calculation of damages for a covered loss”–the lost income. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the “policy … excludes coverage for flood damages at the Forest Isle property. The flood exclusion does not, however, prevent Berk-Cohen from recovering lost business income due to the favorable business conditions arising from flood damage to other buildings.”

This case demonstrates that applying the “normal cannons of contract interpretation” can work to the benefit of the insured. As with any contract, the insurance company is bound by the plain meaning of the policy language, even if it means that excluding coverage for one claim will open the door to liability for another. The lesson here is that a knowledgeable and experienced attorney is invaluable to anyone who is involved in a dispute over insurance coverage.

Continue reading

Contact Information
1140 St Charles Ave
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 521-6000Fax: (504) 617-6300

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design