Appeals Court Sides With NJ Transit in $400M Hurricane Sandy Insurance Fight
At issue was whether the damage was caused by flooding or a "named windstorm" under the policy language.
November 18, 2019 at 03:51 PM
5 minute read
A state appeals court has ruled that New Jersey Transit is entitled to coverage up to its $400 million policy limit for water damage from Hurricane Sandy, rejecting insurers' claims that a $100 million limit on flood-related coverage applies.
The panel upheld an Essex County Superior Court judge's ruling that policy language providing coverage for a "named windstorm" applies to damage at the agency's properties, and rejected claims by several of the agency's insurance companies that policy language providing coverage for "losses caused by flood" applied to the damage.
The appeals court also rejected a claim by one of New Jersey Transit's insurers, Torus Specialty Insurance Co., now known as StarStone Insurance Co., for reformation of New Jersey Transit's insurance policies based on allegedly misleading statements to it by the agency's insurance broker, Marsh.
The dispute revolved around a multilayered property insurance program involving policies from 11 companies. The plan had $400 million in coverage overall but included 27 categories of losses for which coverage was subject to sublimits of less than $400 million, including flood damage.
In addition, section two of the standard policy form, titled "limit of liability," sets forth 27 categories of losses for which coverage is subject to "100% per occurrence ground-up sublimits."
After Sandy struck in October 2012, causing extensive damage to NJ Transit's properties, an adjuster notified it on behalf of several excess carriers that the $100 million limit for flood losses would apply to the agency's claimed losses. Marsh, the broker, disagreed, claiming NJ Transit was entitled to the full $400 million policy limit because the losses were caused by a named windstorm.
New Jersey Transit filed the suit in 2014, naming seven insurance companies as defendants, and sought a judgment that the $100 million limit did not apply to its claims for property damage from Sandy. In September 2017, Superior Court Judge Dennis Carey of Essex County granted NJ Transit's motion for summary judgment and denied summary judgment motions by underwriters at Lloyd's, Maiden Specialty Insurance Co., RSUI Indemnity Co., Specialty Insurance Co. and Westport Insurance Corp., and Torus Specialty Insurance.
On appeal, the insurance companies claimed that Sandy-related damage to NJ Transit's properties met the policy definition of flood—either the "overflow, release, rising, back-up, runoff or surge of surface water," or "the unusual or rapid accumulation or runoff of surface water from any source."
But Judges Joseph Yannotti, Heidi Currier and Lisa Firko disagreed. They found the damage in question met the policy definition of a named windstorm to include "wind driven water, storm surge and flood associated with, or which occurs with, a 'named windstorm'" or the "direct action of wind including storm surge when such wind/storm surge is associated with or occurs in conjunction with" a named windstorm.
"Where, as here, two provisions of an insurance policy address the same subject, the more specific provision controls over the more general," Yannotti wrote for the court. In addition, if the parties had intended that damage from a "storm surge" would be subject to the flood sublimit, the policies would have said so in plain language, Yannotti wrote.
And if the term "flood" already included damage from a "storm surge" associated with a "named windstorm," as the defendants claim, there would have been no need for the parties to include the "named windstorm" provision in the policies, Yannotti wrote.
Torus sought reformation of the policy on the basis of fraud, a claim that was rejected. Torus argued that a Marsh underwriter sought to include the named windstorm definition policy language as a way to increase coverage limits. Torus said Marsh's underwriter said the named windstorm language was added to the policies for "concurrency purposes."
Yannotti wrote that that statement was "not a factual representation regarding the scope of coverage, and it was not false." Torus' claim was not based on any affirmative misrepresentations, but on the allegation that Marsh failed to disclose material facts about the "named windstorm" definition.
"Here, there is no basis for recognizing a duty on the part of Marsh to make any specific disclosures regarding the effect of the addition of the 'named windstorm' definition would have on the flood sublimit," Yannotti wrote. "Marsh and Torus did not have a principal and agency relationship. Moreover, Marsh and Torus did not have a relationship in which either reposed 'trust and confidence' in the other," the judge said.
Shawn Kelly of Denton in Short Hills, who represented StarStone, and a New Jersey Transit spokeswoman declined to comment.
Kenneth Frenchman of McKool Smith in New York, who represented New Jersey Transit, and Robert Fisher of Clyde & Co in Atlanta, who represented certain underwriters at Lloyd's, Maiden Specialty, RSUI Indemnity and Westport, did not respond to requests for comment.
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 AllJudge Approves $667K Settlement Against Independence Blue Cross for Unpaid, Pre-Shift Computer Work
4 minute readTurning the Tables: Defense Litigators Embrace Lawsuits, Alleging Fraud at Plaintiffs Shops
6 minute readTitle Insurance Agency on Hot Seat Over Homebuyer Fees, Alleged Kickbacks
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 2Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 3US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 4Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 5McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
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