Photo of Anthony B. Crawford

Anthony B. Crawford

Subscribe to Anthony B. Crawford's Posts
Contact:Read more about Anthony B. Crawford

For insurance recovery attorneys, one of the more frustrating ways for a policyholder to lose coverage for a property loss is on the basis of late notice. Property insurance policies generally require the policyholder to give the insurance company “prompt notice” of claims and potential claims. Property policies may specify a timeframe in which the policyholder must give notice, but in many cases do not. New York courts routinely hold that short delays, even as little as one to two months, suffice as a basis to deny coverage where the policy has “prompt notice” requirements. Under New York law, however, an insurance company can waive its late notice defense by not raising it explicitly when it finally disclaims coverage. Indeed, recently, a federal court in New York court rejected the insurance company’s late notice defense, even where the policyholder conceded that it did not provide prompt notice as a matter of law, because the insurance company failed to explicitly deny coverage on that ground.

Summary of recent New York federal court decision

In Mave Hotel Investors LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, the plaintiffs (“Mave”) sought coverage for property damage at its hotel following the termination of its contract with a human services organization housing formerly homeless families with children at the hotel. No. 21-cv-08743 (JSR), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62718 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2023). Mave alleged that its rooms were damaged while the families were living there. The insurer, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London (“Lloyds”), ultimately denied coverage the ground that any damage was caused by ordinary wear and tear, an excluded cause of loss. At trial, however, Lloyd’s moved for summary judgment, arguing among other things, late notice.Continue Reading An insurance company’s generic reservation of right can lead to a Waiver of a Late Notice Defense

A concert promoter cancels a sold-out show of a world-renowned recording artist, reimbursing millions of dollars in ticket sales as a result.  If the reason for the cancellation was COVID-19, does insurance cover that?

Event Cancellation Insurance Basics

Event cancellation insurance generally provides coverage only when there has been a triggering event under the policy.  Some policies are written, for example, to only cover cancellations caused by rain or bad weather.  Other event cancellation policies are all-risk policies, meaning that coverage may be triggered by any cause that is not specifically excluded.  For all types of event cancellation insurance, the triggering event must have been fortuitous, or outside of the policyholder’s control.

Good News for Policyholders

The good news for policyholders is that many all-risk event cancellation policies do cover cancellations caused by COVID-19 related shut-down orders.  For such policies, a shut-down order should qualify as a fortuitous triggering event.  Across the United States, nearly every jurisdiction has enacted some kind of order that caused the cancellation of large-scale events.

Notes of Caution

Policyholders should be cautious concerning the scope of exclusions in respect of viruses and communicable diseases.  Although these types of exclusions may bar coverage related to COVID-19, it is important to be mindful of variations in the exclusion language used.  Some exclusions apply to only specific named viruses, such as SARS and MERS.  Other exclusions contain carve-outs that may be applicable to COVID-19.Continue Reading COVID-19 event cancellation insurance – good news and bad news

In a recent unanimous decision, the Appellate Division First Department provided clarity on the pleading requirements for policyholders seeking special or consequential damages allowed under the landmark decision of Bi-Economy Market v. Harleysville Insurance Company of New York, 856 N.Y.S.2d 505 (N.Y., Feb. 19, 2008). Under Bi-Economy, policyholders may seek special or consequential damages resulting from an insurance company’s failure to provide coverage if such damages were foreseen or should have been foreseen when the insurance contract was made. Id. at 508. In its prior ruling in Panasia Estates v. Hudson Insurance Company, the First Department noted that the “reference to such damages as ‘special’ in Bi-Economy Mkt. … was not intended to establish a requirement of specificity in pleading.” 889 N.Y.S.2d 452, 453 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., Dec. 15, 2009). The ruling, however, left open the question of what pleading requirements policyholders had to meet in order to state a claim for special damages, a question that it recently answered in D.K. Property v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 2019 WL 237454 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., Jan. 17, 2019).
Continue Reading Lightening the load: New York Appellate Division rejects heightened pleading standard for policyholders seeking Bi-Economy Market consequential damages

The New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, recently rejected an attempt to apply the “common interest doctrine,” an exception to the general rule that communicating privileged information to a third party waives the attorney-client privilege, to situations where separately represented parties communicate attorney-client privileged information in connection with transactions or other circumstances other than in anticipation of litigation. Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 80, 2016 WL 3188989 (N.Y. June 9, 2016). As this case shows, companies should be mindful of what information they share outside the litigation context, because the common interest doctrine may not be available to protect that information.
Continue Reading ‘Sorry, But You Have Nothing in Common’: The New York Court of Appeals’ Recent Rejection of the ‘Common Interest Doctrine’ Outside the Context of Litigation

Insurance requirements in commercial agreements and corresponding additional insured provisions in insurance policies are important tools to manage and transfer risks. However, far too often those efforts are thwarted by inattention and, in some cases, sloppiness. As exemplified by the disastrous outcome for the contracting parties in Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Vita Food Products, Inc., No. 13 C 05181 (E.D. Ill. January 30, 2015), there are many pitfalls to successfully transfer risk and secure additional insured coverage.
Continue Reading Harmonizing Risk Transfer: Avoiding Pitfalls With Additional Insured Provisions

The Buffalo, New York area has been devastated with record level snowfalls causing widespread damage. Now that the snow has stopped falling, warmer weather and potentially heavy rainfall may cause flooding and will likely exacerbate the losses being experienced. This will complicate insurance claims because policyholders will inevitably face pushback from insurance companies regarding the extent of damage from the snowstorms versus subsequent flooding.
Continue Reading The End of the Snow Is Still Not the End of the Problems For the Buffalo, NY Area