How Much Coverage Do You Really Have? Valuation and Loss Settlement Provisions in Commercial Property Policies
While in many cases involving a substantial property loss the applicable policy limit is clear, in some cases it is not, and the amount to which the policyholder is entitled is governed by a confluence of policy provisions informed by applicable state law.
October 01, 2024 at 11:47 AM
10 minute read
Board of ContributorsCommercial property insurance is an essential form of protection for any business that owns or leases property. Like most insurance policies, commercial property policies are subject to coverage limits setting forth the maximum amount the insurer(s) are contractually obligated to pay. While in many cases involving a substantial property loss the applicable policy limit is clear, in some cases it is not, and the amount to which the policyholder is entitled is governed by a confluence of policy provisions informed by applicable state law.
For purposes of our discussion, assume a policyholder owns a building that suffered a near-total covered loss. Assume the policyholder holds a commercial property policy insuring multiple separate properties with an aggregate policy limit of $100 million. Finally, assume the damaged building has a "scheduled" value of $10 million based on a schedule of values on file with the insurer, a market value of $15 million, and that repairs necessary to return the building to its pre-loss condition will cost $20 million. Whether the policyholder is entitled to recover $20 million, $15 million, $10 million (or some number in between) depends on the type of policy at issue and the interaction of loss payment (or loss-settlement), valuation and like provisions governing the extent of the insurer's liability. Examples of those policies and provisions are discussed below:
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 readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Morgan Lewis Shutters Shenzhen Office Less Than Two Years After Launch
- 2Litigating the Written Word: Parol Evidence Rule and the Gist of the Action Doctrine in Fraud Claims
- 3Why Wait? Arbitrate! The Value of Consenting to Arbitrate Your SUM Cases at NAM
- 4The Legal Status of Presidential Diaries Must Be Clarified
- 5Litigators of the Week: Shortly After Name Partner Kathleen Sullivan’s Retirement, Quinn Emanuel Scores Appellate Win for Vimeo
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