Awake Ye Lenders to the Problems and Pitfalls of Collateral Insurance Coverage
The ravages of the recent hurricane season served as a wake-up call to many lenders and their professionals about problems and pitfalls when collateral is not appropriately and necessarily insured as well as when the lenders do not have the necessary rights concerning insurance recoveries.
January 29, 2018 at 12:15 PM
6 minute read
The ravages of the recent hurricane season served as a wake-up call to many lenders and their professionals about problems and pitfalls when collateral is not appropriately and necessarily insured as well as when the lenders do not have the necessary rights concerning insurance recoveries. Too often, lenders found that they had not focused on the uniqueness and special needs of certain types of collateral securing loans and that, to their dismay, they were not adequately protected.
Review All Insurance Policies Before Closing a Loan. In too many instances lenders that have collateral insurance requirements in loan documents only require the borrowers to provide certificates of coverage before closing the loan. Not all insurance policies are the same. If collateral securing a loan is to be covered by insurance, the lender and its professionals should review the insurance policies itself before closing the loan and not just the insurance certificate. Additionally, the borrower and the lender should notify the insurance carrier not only of the lender's collateral interests, but also to require the insurance carrier to inform the lender if any terms in the insurance policies are changed or modified or any of the insurance policies are canceled. The lender should also make sure that the start date of coverage is no later than the date the loan closes and that the insurance carrier meets minimum rating requirements.
Never be an Additional Insured. Most lenders require that their collateralization is protected by requiring the borrower to maintain specified insurance coverage. However, either by design or neglect, the lender is listed as an additional insured on the policy as opposed to being a loss payee. This is a distinction and a major difference. As a loss payee, the lender has rights concerning the adjustment of the casualty loss and the timing and adequacy of the payment by the insurance company for the loss. Being listed as a loss payee also prevents the borrower from unilaterally settling a claim quickly for a lower amount. As an additional insured, the lender abdicates its independent rights and can be subject to the whim of the borrower concerning any insurance settlement and proceeds. Furthermore, in the event of a bankruptcy proceeding involving the borrowers, the rights of the lender are distinctly different and detrimental as an additional insured.
Insist on Necessary Geographic Coverage. Most lenders have standard insurance provisions in their loan documents which usually require what is known as multi-peril casualty coverage which includes fire, theft, etc. However, especially in areas like Florida where there are perils such as windstorms and floods that are geographically unique, it is essential to make sure that the loan agreements require appropriate coverage. Fire, hail, earthquake and hurricane insurance are other types of extra coverage that lenders should require in areas prone to those kinds of disasters. If the borrower is located near a body of water, additional umbrella insurance may be required since flood insurance has a minimum upper limit. Each loan should be individually analyzed to make sure that there is coverage appropriate to the physical geographic location of the collateral.
Insist on Replacement Cost Coverage. In not reviewing insurance policies before closing a loan, or in only requiring minimum limits of coverage, lenders often cheat themselves in the event of a casualty loss. The tangible assets that serve as collateral for commercial loans should be covered to the extent of replacement cost and not some other formula such as a depreciated value. While replacement cost insurance may be more expensive, it is the only way to provide appropriate protection to the lender if the valuable collateral is lost due to a casualty. And the total coverage of the insurance policies should at least equal the loan amount.
Builder's Risk Policies Are Not All the Same. Whether or not a lender is making a construction loan, if the borrower is doing any construction where the tangible collateral is to be located, the lender and its professionals should require appropriate builder's risk insurance policies, worker's compensation policies and policies that protect against the use of defective materials. Otherwise, in the event of a casualty where the borrower is not adequately insured, the loss can create a catastrophic environment which will preclude the borrower from continuing as a going business concern.
Preclude Other Lenders from Being a Loss Payee. While it may seem axiomatic that a lender would take steps to preclude junior liens on collateral too often this occurs without the senior lender's knowledge. If the senior lender does not have an agreement from the borrower and the insurance carriers that there will be no other loss payees on an insurance policy, in the event of a casualty, an unsuspecting lender can be caught up in time-consuming and expensive litigation as to the parties' respective rights to the insurance proceeds.
Do More Than List Insurance Proceeds as Part of the Collateral. Many lenders and their professionals believe that listing “all insurance proceeds of the collateral” in the collateral description in a security agreement and financing statement is sufficient. It is not. While this does create a security interest in any insurance proceeds resulting from a casualty of the collateral, in the event of a bankruptcy proceeding of the borrower, the lender's interest is only as good as the value of the collateral. Therefore, the collateral description should also designate the lender as a loss payee on all insurance policies covering the collateral.
Business Interruption Insurance Proceeds Are Different. Lenders and their professionals too often fail to focus on the fact that the proceeds from business interruption insurance that may be held by a borrower will not be covered by language in security agreements and financing statements covering “proceeds of collateral insurance.” Business interruption insurance does not cover tangible assets subject to a security interest. Thus, it is imperative that a lender adds to its collateral description in loan documents a separate category covering business interruption insurance, and require the lender's designation as a loss payee on any business interruption insurance policy.
Deductible Limits. Many insurance policies carry a deductible, which is the amount of money that the borrower must pay before the insurer pays on a claim. Borrowers have a financial incentive to obtain insurance policies with higher deductibles since that typically results in a lower premium cost. Lenders should make sure that the deductible doesn't exceed a threshold percentage of the value of the collateral.
The above is only a summary of some of the problems and pitfalls that can entrap the unsuspecting and unfocused lender. It is imperative that lenders and its professionals be awake and vigilant when structuring, memorializing and overseeing collateralized loans.
Charles M. Tatelbaum is a director and senior attorney in the bankruptcy and creditors rights department at Tripp Scott in Fort Lauderdale. Matthew Zifrony is a director with Tripp Scott and serves as general counsel for several large companies.
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
© 2025 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 AllLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readCFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information
5 minute readEssential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Initial Steps to Set Up a Fla. Appeal: Your Future Self (or Appellate Attorney) Will Thank You
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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