To Recover Appraisal Award Insured Must Actually Repair or Replace
Post 4855
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfAhbDWD, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gqwD6tSa and at https://lnkd.in/gHaWy4UM, and at https://zalma.com/blog and more than 4850 posts.
Cresthaven appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for relief from the court’s order dismissing without prejudice Cresthaven’s suit against Empire Indemnity Insurance Company (“Empire”) and for leave to file a supplemental complaint.
In Cresthaven Ashley Master Association, Inc. v. Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, No. 23-12761, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 7, 2024) the Eleventh Circuit resolved the dispute.
FACTS
Cresthaven, a condominium association, purchased a commercial property policy from Empire for a period covering March 17, 2017 to March 17, 2018 (the “Policy”). On September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma struck the state of Florida. Cresthaven timely filed a claim with Empire for property damages sustained in the storm, which Empire denied on April 19, 2019.
Cresthaven’s Complaint, filed on July 15, 2019, sought a declaratory judgment that it did not breach its post loss duties, as well as the enforcement of the Policy’s appraisal provision and damages for breach of contract. Over the next three years, the parties conducted an appraisal and Cresthaven received two awards for property damages.
Empire a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction arguing that Cresthaven’s case no longer presented an actual Case or Controversy under Article III. The Court granted Empire’s motion on March 24, 2022.
March 24, 2022 Dismissal Order
Cresthaven needed to first identify an applicable law or ordinance that, if enforced, could result in a loss in value to the undamaged portion of the building or an increased cost to reconstruct any portion of the building, whether damaged or not. Second, the applicable law or ordinance needed to be enforced. Third, the applicable ordinance or law must have resulted in the aforementioned “loss in value” or “increased cost”. Cresthaven failed to satisfy any of the three preconditions.
The Court dismissed Cresthaven’s claims for failing to present an actual Case or Controversy.
Post-Dismissal Events
Cresthaven diligently commenced and completed repairs for several of its structures. Cresthaven never completed repairs or completed them timely to recover benefits under the Replacement Cost coverage under Empire’s Policy. Empire effectively invoked the five year statute of repose for property insurance claims under Fla. Stat. §95.11(2)(e).
DISCUSSION
Empire never waived its right to invoke the statute of repose. Without evidence that Empire represented that it would not invoke the statute of repose, the Eleventh Circuit could not conclude that the district court abused its discretion in declining to attribute bad faith to Empire’s communications about adjusting the claim with Cresthaven after the dismissal.
Empire’s written waiver was very specific and waived only the “as soon as reasonably possible” and the two-year deadline with respect to repairs, the temporal limitations that appeared in the Policy itself.
Empire’s July 8, 2022, letter invited Cresthaven to complete repairs and submit requests for payment. The fact that Empire did invoke the five-year statute of repose after its expiration merely indicates that Empire intended to exercise its rights under the Policy provisions and the law, which intention was apparent from the very inception of Cresthaven’s claim.
Empire’s waiver of two very specific rights is not a basis on which to infer a waiver of all rights.
The Policy provisions required Cresthaven to perform the work and identify the relevant ordinance before seeking reimbursement and the district court still would have granted the motion.
ZALMA OPINION
Waiver is a legal concept that allows parties to agree that certain conditions of a contract of insurance will not apply as long as it is knowingly made without coercion. Empire waived two rights provided to it in the policy. That was all it waived, nothing more, and it certainly did not waive the Statute of Repose, which, when it expired destroyed the entire lawsuit and arguments of Cresthaven. An insured should never sit on its rights.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
