Keys to Successful Property Insurance Recoveries Following Harvey, Irma, Jose and Maria
In the wake of Harvey, Irma, Jose and Maria, the 2017 hurricane season is turning out to be one of the most catastrophic on record.
November 16, 2017 at 10:15 AM
5 minute read
In the wake of Harvey, Irma, Jose and Maria, the 2017 hurricane season is turning out to be one of the most catastrophic on record. To maximize insurance recoveries, businesses that have suffered property damage and business income loss will need both to act quickly and exercise long-term persistence. Key steps are outlined below.
Mind Your Deadlines
Almost all types of insurance policies require prompt notice of loss, and strict compliance with this condition to coverage can be critical. At this early juncture, however, policyholders should be cautious in providing any specifics concerning the cause of loss until the policy has been reviewed and all facts have been obtained. The cause of loss, in the immediate aftermath of a storm, can simply be listed as the storm itself or “the effects of” the storm.
In addition to timely notice requirements, property policies typically have several other time-sensitive requirements with which some states require strict compliance. Some examples include suit limitation provisions and deadlines for submission of a sworn proof of loss, notice of intention to elect replacement cost coverage and to complete covered repairs.
Insurance Policy Identification and Review
Private commercial property insurance policies and flood insurance policies issued through the National Flood Insurance Program are typically the policies that will respond to most storm-related commercial losses. While this article focuses primarily on commercial property insurance coverage, many of the tips presented here apply equally to other potentially available types of property insurance coverage.
Insurance policy review should include analyzing all potentially available coverages, including for repairs or replacement of physically damaged real and personal property, as well as coverage for lost profits stemming from a slowdown or complete cessation of your business. Coverage for lost profits and extra expenses you may incur to resume normal operations may be available to you whether or not your business actually sustained physical damage. Civil authority, ingress/egress and contingent business interruption are just a few examples of such potentially available coverages. Important coverage considerations include whether the policies provide all risk and named peril coverage, whether there are exclusions pertaining to flood or to storm surge, how the policies define flood, and whether the policies contain anti-concurrent causation language, which could bar coverage for a loss even if it is a result of both covered and uncovered causes.
The review also should encompass the limits, sublimits and any deductibles applicable to each potentially available coverage. Business interruption and extra expense limits and deductibles, for example, may be stated in time, amount or both. As a related issue, the number of “occurrences” produced by a storm can affect the amount of times that limits, sublimits and deductibles are triggered. This may be significant as respects Hurricane Harvey, which made multiple landfalls over multiple days, potentially giving rise to arguments for the application of multiple “occurrences.” This can work to the benefit of policyholders and insurance companies alike, depending on the amount of the loss at stake relative to the amount of applicable policy limits and deductibles.
Many policies that provide flood coverage will sublimit it, meaning that less than full limits are available for losses resulting from flood. Policies do not define flood uniformly, and the manner in which your policy defines flood, and the case law interpreting that definition, may mean the difference between coverage and no coverage.
Preparation of the Claim
Policyholders should promptly respond in writing to all reasonable insurance company requests for information; however, policyholders should not rely on the insurance company to calculate the loss. Rather, policyholders should prepare, present and defend their claims to their insurance companies.
For large losses, policyholders should consider retaining a professional claim preparer or a public adjuster. Others typically needed to round out the team include coverage counsel, forensic accountants who specializes in business interruption losses, and possibly structural or other engineers, architects and/or contractors. The policy may provide coverage for certain members of the claim preparation team, typically subject to a sublimit.
Policyholders should establish a program for regular updates to insurance companies as to the status of the claim. They should also keep detailed notes of conversations with insurance company representatives, including meeting minutes. Where there are verbal agreements, policyholders should write letters confirming such agreements and seek payment of advances for all proven and undisputed losses.
Diligent Pursuit of Insurance Proceeds
Following a natural disaster such as Harvey, Irma, Jose or Maria, policyholders need to be diligent in pursuing insurance to help them quickly get back on their feet. Diligence in pursuing insurance involves reviewing insurance policies for all available coverages, taking stock of notice provisions and key time limitations, and taking steps to prepare, present and defend the claim. Getting these first steps right will help policyholders efficiently maximize their insurance recoveries following natural disasters.
Dennis J. Artese is a shareholder and Peter A. Halprin is an attorney in Anderson Kill's insurance recovery group in New York.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Samsung Flooded With Galaxy Product Patent Lawsuits in Texas Federal Court
- 2How Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
- 3On the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
- 4Review of Ex-parte orders by the Appellate Division
- 5'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250