The Western District of Pennsylvania recently had to answer the question of whether a raccoon’s actions in destroying a property can be considered vandalism or malicious mischief under an insurance policy. The trial court found that “raccoons and their companions in the animal kingdom cannot formulate the intent needed to engage in vandalism, malicious mischief, … Continue Reading
In a recent case,1 a federal appeals court addressed the issue of whether fire damage to a vacant dwelling from an arsonist was considered distinct from vandalism, so as to not implicate an exclusion within a homeowners insurance policy. In that case, Wells Fargo Bank owned an insurance policy on an abandoned house that an … Continue Reading
A federal court in the Northern District of Georgia recently found that State Farm’s contamination clause was ambiguous regarding its application to a meth lab claim.… Continue Reading
The Appellate Court in New York recently reversed the trial court’s finding in favor of the insured which had concluded the vandalism exclusion did not apply to the loss.1 The insured owned certain real property which it was renovating and using as rental property. It was admitted the property had been vacant and unoccupied for … Continue Reading
Theft of copper wiring or piping is a loss that impacts many in urban areas, but whether there is coverage for the loss is usually dependent upon the specific language of the insurance policy. This issue was recently addressed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Dillon v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company.1… Continue Reading
Going way back to the roots of insurance, fire was the peril that insurance was designed to protect. Fire damage and smoke are incredibly damaging and cause many injuries and fatalities. While our suppression efforts have a come a long way, there is still a long way for us to go with fire insurance claims … Continue Reading
How many of you have been faced with a fire claim where the insurer denies coverage on the grounds that the fire was the result of vandalism and therefore the claim was excluded? Well, a recent California Court of Appeal decision has held that insurers taking this position have to actually prove that the person … Continue Reading
As a child of the 80s, I remember all the television commercials constantly reminding me “reading is fundamental,” and my English teachers testing me to see if I understood how a word or phrase in one part of a book was important to another section of a book. Little did I know, those commercials and … Continue Reading
Ever wonder what is in thieves and criminals minds when they are rummaging through stuff to either steal or destroy property? One recent Connecticut case, Mercedes Zee Corp. v. Seneca Insurance Company,1 involving the distinction between theft and vandalism would leave jurors to decipher the criminal mind and determine whether the motive of criminals was … Continue Reading
Back on January 25, 2000 the Washington Court of Appeals opinion in Bowers v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, sent a very clear message that an innocent landlord whose property was damaged due to an illegal marijuana growing operation was covered under the vandalism language of the landlord’s policy.1… Continue Reading
Some courts across the country have determined whether arson is included within an exclusion for "vandalism and malicious mischief." This issue arises under the vacancy type of exclusion within property insurance policies. Florida appellate courts had not spoken directly on this issue, until just recently.1… Continue Reading
New York’s highest appellate court holds an expansive view of property insurance coverage for vandalism losses. Back in January, 2013, I wrote a post: So There Is An Excavation Company As Your Next Door Neighbor; Could It Trigger Vandalism Coverage To Your Property, about a question the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit … Continue Reading
The title of this article seems to explain an interesting yet strange concept if you think about it in the abstract; that an act can be considered vandalism even if it is not directed at the damaged property that is insured. When you think about it in the context of vandalism claims in property insurance … Continue Reading
Recently, a small restaurant was vandalized. The damage caused by the vandals caused a water leak, which damaged the restaurant’s top floor bathroom and the bottom floor of the property. The damage was extensive, and the restaurant retained a water remediation company that same day. The restaurant’s owner retained a public adjuster who he used … Continue Reading
In New York State, at least for the time being, it may be possible to trigger vandalism coverage even when the actions causing damage to your property occur at your neighbor’s property. Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question a question on that issue to New York State’s … Continue Reading
Stephen Hadhazi has a website devoted to sharing his knowledge regarding vandalism losses with policyholders who have suffered losses. A licensed public adjuster in Texas, Florida, Hawaii, and Oklahoma, Stephen got his start working in the construction industry. Stephen explains, Like so many public adjusters, I began as a general contractor and an roofing contractor who … Continue Reading
Texas courts have ruled that insurance policies which provide coverage for vandalism, but exclude coverage for theft, also exclude any damage that is “in furtherance of theft.” Practically speaking, if a thief breaks through your interior sheetrock walls to steal the copper wires behind them, a typical insurance policy will exclude coverage completely, even for … Continue Reading
It’s a sad truth that building owners have to worry about burglars breaking into their buildings to steal copper wire and pipes. Many insurance companies don’t cover damage as a result of theft, but a lot of them do cover any damage related to burglars breaking in and exiting a building. However, a recent case … Continue Reading
The Fire Casualty, & Surety Bulletins (FC&S Bulletins) had a simple vandalism claim that highlights a major difference between all risk coverage versus named peril coverage. Here is the coverage question posted with the significant language of the question bolded:… Continue Reading
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London v. Law No. 08-20159, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11771 (5th Cir. June 2, 2009) The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals limited a vandalism coverage provision to damage done solely for the sake of damage and limited a breaking in and exiting provision to damage done while breaking into or … Continue Reading
The deteriorating economy appears to be having an impact on our business. We are being referred more insurance disputes involving losses that are directly the result of the souring economy. For the first time in a decade, we have been referred several fire claims that are allegedly of an incendiary (intentionally set) cause. There are … Continue Reading
