Blog powered by TypePad
My Photo

Please Read Disclaimer.

  • REMINDER: THE CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG DO NOT MAKE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP. ALWAYS CONSULT THE CASES AND LAWS OF EACH PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND AN ATTORNEY IN AND FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND ITS LAWS, WHENEVER YOU TRY TO ADDRESS OR RESOLVE ANY LEGAL QUESTION.
    The information provided on this site is informational, only. No legal advice is given and no attorney/client or other relationship is established or intended. We cannot represent, guarantee or warrant that the information contained in this site is appropriate for the usage of any particular reader. We are independent of cross links and do not warrant their accuracy or applicability. We are located in Florida and comply with all ethical rules of the Florida Bar. Some States may require the wording "This is an advertisement" or other words or information of this nature. Reading email or Comments, or replying to email or Comments, or accepting telephone calls or returning telephone calls shall not be considered legal advice. No professional relationship will be deemed to exist unless and until an agreement for professional services has been signed by both client and Mr. Wall after appropriate interviews and conflict checks. We require that all agreements for professional services be in writing and signed by Mr. Wall, the Firm and the client, whether for Legal Services, Consulting Services, or Expert Witness.

Google Search This Site

  • Google Search This Site!
    Google

    WWW
    insuranceclaimsissues.typepad.com

June 13, 2008

Level of Insurance Coverage Levels the Playing Field.

     Disputes between Insurance Companies and their Policyholders is nothing new.  In California, for example, there is a dispute brewing about who is responsible for maintaining levels of Insurance Coverage necessary to provide the money to rebuild after recent wildfires there, the Insurance Companies or the Policyholders, or both.  Marc Lifsher, "Wildfires Heat up Debate on Inadequate Insurance Coverage" (Los Angeles Times Online, Friday, June 6, 2008, a link which may or may not work if TypePad issues are not resolved, but available online at www.latimes.com.

     One thing remains certain.  Maintaining the level(s) of Insurance Coverage which provide payouts adequate to rebuild a home after a covered loss is a very good idea if the desired result is to rebuild a home after a covered loss.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

July 13, 2007

New Florida Case Law on Proof of Compliance With Conditions.

In last month's Seminar at the Orange County Bar Association in Orlando, Florida, "Survey of Insurance Issues EVERYONE Should Know," one of my topics was an Overview including Recent Cases.  Two cases in particular decided in the past year re-emphasize a couple of lessons regarding proof in a Florida Court of compliance with conditions in an insurance policy:

        COOPERATION: Under Florida law, the liability insurance company has a duty to take reasonable steps to attempt to obtain the insured's cooperation. See Continental Cas. Co. v. City of  Jacksonville, 2006 WL 2048249 *5 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2006)(Richardson, Magistrate Judge).

        NOTICE: Florida law generally raises a presumption of prejudice if there is late notice of a claim against the insured-policyholder, but as a practical matter the parties benefit by introducing evidence on the issue of prejudice, one way or the other, where there is likely to be a holding or finding of late notice.  See, e.g., Donovan Constr., Inc. v. Vacker, 938 So. 2d 597, 598-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(Late Notice issue under a CGL or Commercial General Liability insurance policy, and underlying liability claim was based on the presence of mold; summary judgment for insurance company was reversed).

Please Read The Disclaimer.