What Is A Claim For Loss Resulting From Direct Physical Loss?

HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Inez Grant; Morehouse Parish School Board; Horace Mann Insurance Company and Lloyd Gray, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees.

On December 31 2007, your company determined that a loss in connection to the claim was probable.

This claim arises out of a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff, Debra Nathan-Nenn, on her own behalf, and on behalf of her minor son, Grey Hoffman. The Amended Complaint alleges in general that Ms. Nathan-Nenn executed a written lease to rent a house from the insureds starting on June 1, 2013. The plaintiffs further allege that starting on the day the plaintiffs took possession of the house, the drain in the kitchen sink was not working and the insureds failed to correct this condition. The complaint continues to allege additional deficiencies in the rental property such as mold growth in one of the bedrooms and in various locations of the house due to excess moisture and failure to patch exterior openings, insufficient heating, holes in the exterior walls, an unfinished deck, insufficient weather sealants, vermin in the crawlspace, frozen pipes and lack of running water. The plaintiffs further allege that the insureds have failed to address and resolve the above issues. The most serious claim is that the mold present throughout the house caused the plaintiff and her minor son to become ill.

|  Re-imbursement for the insurance. If the paper work is not right it will affect billing and can create major problems.

One of the principal grounds for rejecting insurance claims is that the claim is not covered by the terms of the policy, or is specifically excluded. The rule that coverage provisions should be interpreted broadly and exclusion clauses should be interpreted narrowly is really just a corollary of the Contra Proferentem rule which applies in the event of ambiguity i.e. it is the insurer who likely drafted the insurance contract and construing coverage provisions broadly, or exclusion clauses narrowly, will be to the detriment of the insurer as the party who drafted the contract. The construction of exclusion clauses and coverage provisions helps justify the objective intention of the contract. This is the intention which the court considers, a reasonable person in the position of the contracting parties, would have had. It is submitted that coverage provisions should be broad and encompassing and exclusion clauses should be narrow. However, before such a conclusion is reached, this paper will aim to justify the reasoning behind such a claim analysing arguments for and against such a proposition, drawing upon the landmark case Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd to help relate the discussion to issues raised by such considerations.

In Maryland, insurance policies are generally construed in the same manner as contracts. Collier v. MD-Individual Practice Ass 'n, Inc., 327 Md. 1, 5, 607 A.2d 537 (1992). An insurance contract, like any other contract, is measured by its terms unless a statute, a regulation, or public policy is violated thereby. Pac. Indem. Co. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 302 Md. 383, 388, 488 A.2d 486 (1985). We do not follow the rule, adopted in other jurisdictions, that an insurance policy is to be construed most strongly against the insurer. Collier, 327 Md. at 5; Cheney, 315 Md. at 766. We construe the instrument as a whole in order to determine the parties’ intent. Pac. Indem., 302 Md. at 388; Collier, 327 Md. at 5; Aragona v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 281 Md. 371, 375, 378 A.2d 1346 (1977). In order to determine the intention of the parties, “Maryland courts should examine the character of the contract, its purpose, and the facts and circumstances of the parties at the time of execution.” Pac. Indem., 302 Md. at 388 (citations omitted). In doing so, we give the words their usual, ordinary, and accepted meanings. Id.; Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ackerman, 162 Md. App. 1, 5, 872 A.2d 110 (2005) (citing Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Scherr, 101 Md. App. 690, 695, 647 A.2d 1297 (1994)). The test is what meaning a reasonably prudent layperson would attach to the term. Pac. Indem., 302 Md. at 388.

4)Unit Three exclusive liability for damages to the sewer line as a result of the tree will end on the day that Unit Three owner no longer lives as said property.

State Farm has asked whether it has a duty to defend the insured pursuant to the insured’s homeowners policy. It is our opinion that State Farm has no duty to defend the insured under the insured’s homeowners policy. The insured’s homeowners policy entitled the insured to a defense for “a suit brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence.” In this case, these elements initially triggering the insured’s homeowners policy are likely satisfied. Nevertheless, the SECTON II – Exclusions section provides that the liability coverage does not apply to any of the fifteen exclusions specifically enumerated therein.

Fire is one of the risks of a construction project against which Allianz’s policy insures; yet it is only one, and given the wide range coverage of the policy, it seemed odd to the presiding judges to classify it as a fire risk insurance policy. A fire insurance policy is subjected to 19 separate requirements, and until 1990, Michigan legislature, rather than trying to define “fire insurance policy”, provided that a “standard fire policy” (with all 19 mandatory minimum provisions) would not be required for a variety of types of insurance. The structure of this Michigan statute implied any form of insurance that was not exempt was a “standard fire policy”, including a builders risk policy, and so the 19 mandatory provisions would have to have been included when indemnity was sought after. However, this legislature was repealed in 1990, well before Allianz issued the

Coverage: Appears to be proper. Insured has no PUP. Only an active Homeowners and Auto. Loss occurred on named insured property and the named insured is the responsible party. The lawn mower is under the 40hp exclusion, mower is 14hp.

This loss falls within our 2015 contract year, our cover is 27% of $750,000 xs $250,000 (Limit is $202,500). HAPI issued a Claims Made and Occurrence Medical Professional Liability policy with limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $3,000,000 aggregate effective 01/01/15 – 12/31/15

ORIGIN OF LOSS: This loss is a result from overflow into risk. We meet with insured and her daughter in law. They showed me where the mitigation had done removal and demo, bathroom, master bathroom and bedroom.

Notably, the lease agreement makes no reference to insuring any personal property in addition to the premises that is the subject of the lease agreement. The most reasonable interpretation of

Note that a duty of care may not be owed to a particular claimant, if the claimant was unforeseeable. See:

Answer: Property and casualty insurance protects property (houses, cars, boats, and so on) against losses due to accidents, fire, disasters, and other calamities. Property and casualty policies tend to be short-term contracts and, that’s why the subject to frequent renewal is, and one more characteristic feature is the absence of savings component. Property and casualty premiums are based on the probability of sustaining the loss. To estimate the key determinant of the price of an insurance policy, i.e. risks, insurance companies take third-party proceedings that develop models of catastrophe loss probabilities. Based on the numbers form Exhibit 5 of the case we see that