Category: Homeowners Insurance

WA Appeals Court Confirms Insurers Can’t Make Coverage Denials A Moving Target

Insurers who deny coverage on an unreasonable basis and get sued by their insureds often try to retroactively change their basis for denying coverage. A recent Washington Court of Appeals decision illustrates why this strategy typically fails.

Nathaniel and Jennifer Cummings owned a home in Western Washington that they rented out. The Cummings purchased homeowners insurance for the property from USAA and continued to rent out the property. Because they lived out of state, the Cummings hired a property manager to handle leasing out the property.

In 2017, the Cummings discovered serious damage and an odd smell left behind when the most recent tenants vacated the property. These issues made it harder for the Cummings’ to sell the property. The Cummings suspected the damage was due to tenants producing methamphetamine in the property.

The Cummings made a claim with USAA and advised that they suspected their property manager had failed to effectively handle the tenants. The only investigation USAA performed was obtaining testing confirming methamphetamine residue in the property, but at levels below the Washington State limits for remediation. The Cummings told USAA they wanted to remediate the methamphetamine contamination anyway because even a small amount of contamination would make it harder to sell the property.

USAA denied the claim. The sole reason it gave was that the policy excluded damage from “pollutants.”

The Cummings filed suit and argued the loss was covered under the USAA insurance policy because the tenants’ meth operation was an act of vandalism. USAA defended its decision to deny coverage by raising new arguments not previously disclosed. It claimed the Cummings violated the policy by failing to disclose the tenants’ use of the property and that the methamphetamine contamination levels were too low to count as vandalism. USAA abandoned its initial reason for denying coverage.

The Cummings argued USAA could not raise new grounds for denying coverage in the lawsuit. The trial court agreed with USAA and dismissed the lawsuit. The Cummings appealed.

The Washington Court of Appeals reversed. Siding with the Cummings, the appellate court agreed that USAA could not raise new justifications for denying the claim after the Cummings filed suit.

The court applied the legal principle of equitable estoppel and relied on Washington State regulations requiring that insurers explain their basis for denying a claim. While insurers can modify the basis for denying coverage when they receive new information as part of a reasonable investigation, insurers cannot raise new grounds for denying coverage after the insured shows that the initial basis given for denying coverage is wrong where they could reasonably have given that bases in the original denial.

The Court of Appeals also agreed with the Cummings that the loss was covered under the policy’s vandalism coverages. The court applied the traditional rule that, where a loss occurs due to multiple causes, and one cause is covered while other causes are excluded, the policy covers whichever cause is the main reason for the damage. The court determined that a reasonable jury could find that the meth contamination qualified as vandalism and hence that USAA should have covered the loss. The appeals court determined the Cummings had the right to challenge USAA’s denial of their claim and sent the case back down to the lower court for trial.

The decision is unpublished, meaning it is not binding precedent, but serves as a good reminder that Washington law frowns on insurers’ efforts to retroactively change their basis for denying coverage after they get caught denying coverage without a reasonable basis.

Replacement Cost Coverage Under Homeowners Insurance Can Be Broader Than You Might Think

Most homeowners insurance provides what’s known as “replacement cost” coverage. Replacement cost coverage varies from policy to policy, but generally provides that the insurance company will pay to repair or replace damaged portions of the home with materials of the same or similar quality that existed before the loss. This coverage basically provides the insurer will pay to repair your home after a loss, so it’s an important component of a homeowners insurance policy.

It’s critical to keep in mind that insurance policies can use many different definitions of replacement cost coverage. The only way to know what a particular insurance policy covers is to have a qualified attorney review the entire policy and all the facts related to the loss. With that in mind, a replacement cost provision typically looks something like this:

The insurance company will pay the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of property insured with material of like construction for similar use on the same premises.

In most insurance policies, this language comes with exclusions, limitations, loss settlement provisions, and other policy language that can change how the replacement coverage applies. It’s critical to have a lawyer review the entire policy to determine how replacement cost coverage works in a particular situation.

Replacement cost coverage can involve several important issues that sometimes cause disputes between the policyholder and the insurer. The first is that the policyholder generally gets to choose the contractor who performs the repairs or replacement. In general, whatever a qualified contractor charges is the cost to repair or replace the damaged property and, therefore, what the insurer should pay under the policy. Unless the insurer hires the contractor and pays for the repairs directly, the insurer should, absent special circumstances, pay the policyholder whatever the contractor charges to repair or replace the damaged property.

Second, replacement cost typically means the cost to replace the materials that were there. If high quality materials were damaged, the insurer should pay for high quality replacements. If damaged materials cannot be repaired to the same condition they were in before the loss, the materials need to be replaced with new materials. Again, this depends on the insurance policy fine print– the devil is in the details.

Third, replacement cost generally includes all the costs to repair or replace the damaged property. These costs often go beyond the mere costs of the new building materials. For instance, replacing a leaky pipe might require removing sections of the drywall and other fixtures to get access to the pipe. In that scenario, the costs to tear out the drywall and fixtures, and to restore them to their pre-loss condition, would exceed the mere cost of the replacement pipe.

Fourth, most policies would require the policyholder to commit to actually performing the repairs or replacement before paying replacement cost benefits. If the policyholder doesn’t plan to actually perform the repair or replacement, many policies would pay only the “actual cash value” of the damaged property. Actual cash value is typically the dollar value the property had immediately before the loss. Replacement cost value is often much higher than actual cash value.

It is important to be mindful that, as with any insurance law question, replacement cost coverage and other benefits vary from case to case. Tiny nuances in the insurance policy fine print of the facts of the specific loss can make a huge difference. In some cases, removing a single word could alter the policyholder’s rights. The only way to know what a particular insurance policy covers, and what benefits the policy holder is entitled to, is to consult a qualified attorney.

Lawsuit Over Neighbors’ Target Shooting Triggers Homeowners’ Insurance Coverage Says Court of Appeals

Most homeowner’s insurance policies include coverage protecting the policyholders from certain kinds of lawsuits. For example, many policies provide that, if the policyholder gets sued for “personal injury” claims, the insurance company will pay for lawyers to defend the policyholder in court. This liability coverage is an important part of most homeowners insurance policies. Determining whether the policy provides coverage for a particular lawsuit often turns on the specific definition of “personal injury” in the policy.

A recent Court of Appeals decision emphasizes the importance of the technical definitions of “personal injury” and other liability coverage terms of art under homeowners insurance policies.

Mr. and Mrs. Webb were sued by a neighbor who alleged that, while the Webbs were target shooting on their own property, they fired bullets that ricocheted on to the neighbors’ property. The neighbors asserted claims including trespass and assault.

The Webbs made a claim under the liability coverage contained in their USAA homeowners insurance policy, asking USAA to cover the defense of the neighbors’ lawsuit. The Webbs’ USAA insurance policy provided liability coverage for lawsuits against the Webbs for “bodily injury,” “property damage,” or “personal injury.” The policy excluded coverage for any suits against the Webbs arising from the Webbs’ alleged “intentional acts.”

USAA refused to defend the Webbs against the neighbors’ lawsuit. USAA claimed that “some of the allegations” in the neighbors’ lawsuit did not meet the definitions for “bodily injury,” “property damage,” or “personal injury.” USAA provided no further details. After the Webbs threatened legal action, USAA changed its denial. USAA continued to deny coverage but removed the “some of the allegations” language from the denial letter. The Webbs filed suit against USAA seeking coverage.

The trial court sided with USAA and dismissed the lawsuit. The court concluded all the claims against the Webbs arose from the Webbs “intentional acts” and were therefore excluded from coverage. The Webbs appealed.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the Webbs and reversed the trial court. The Court of Appeals concluded USAA’s insurance policy covered the Webbs by parsing the policy definitions of “personal injury” and “intentional acts.” Prior cases indicated the definition of “personal injury” included claims relating to trespassing on another’s property, which fit the allegations that the Webbs had fired bullets on to the neighbors’ property. The Court of Appeals also determined that because at least some of the neighbors’ allegations triggered coverage under the policy, USAA had to defend the lawsuit. In making that determination, the court relied on the general principle that ambiguous insurance policy language must be interpreted in favor of the insured.

Having determined the policy covered the lawsuit under the definition of “personal injury”, the Court of Appeals also concluded the policy’s exclusion for intentional acts did not apply. The court noted that the appropriate question was whether the Webbs were sued for conduct that the Webbs “expected or intended.” The neighbors’ lawsuit did not allege the Webbs intentionally fired on to the neighbors’ property. Rather, the neighbors alleged the Webbs fired at targets on the Webbs’ property but carelessly and recklessly allowed bullets to ricochet on to the neighbors’ property. Those allegations did not allege the Webbs intentionally trespassed on to the neighbors’ property. Just because the Webbs intended to fire guns did not mean the Webbs intended the bullets would ricochet on to the neighbors’ property.

This decision is an important reminder that the technical terms in insurance policies are critical to understanding the rights and obligations under the policy.  These terms can often have meanings defined in caselaw, as occurred in the Webb so an experienced attorney’s input is essential.

 

 

 

 

 

Flood Insurance Claim Tips

Following several weeks of storms and heavy flooding in Washington State, the state Insurance Commissioner released a list of tips for homeowners dealing with flood losses under their insurance policies. Flood insurance is challenging, so the Insurance Commissioner’s advice should be helpful to policyholders affected by the flooding.

The upshot is:

  • Most homeowner’s and renter’s insurance policies do not cover flood damage.
  • Flood insurance is available through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Insurance Program.
  • NFIP policies come in two types. The first type of policy covers flood damage to the building, such as the foundation, electrical wiring, flooring, etc.
  • The second type of NFIP policy covers flood damage to personal property like appliances, electronics, and other personal belongings.
  • Homeowner’s affected by flooding who don’t have flood insurance coverage may be eligible for federal emergency grants or loans.

 

 

 

 

Deadlines in Policy Fine Print Can’t Cut off IFCA Rights Says Court of Appeals

Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA) protects policyholders from insurers’ unreasonable refusal to pay covered losses or provide insurance policy benefits. Unfortunately, many insurers include fine print in the insurance policy contract that supposedly provides the policyholder cannot sue the insurer once certain time period has passed since the loss. These time periods are typically much, much shorter than statutes of limitations, and are often as short as one year.

Insurers often claim this language lets them off the hook for violating policyholders’ rights under IFCA or other laws once enough time has passed. This is particularly problematic because insurers often drag out disputed insurance claims for as long as possible. Accepting these insurers’ arguments would allow insurers to immunize themselves from suit by simply stalling until the deadline runs.

Can they do that?

Fortunately for Washington State policyholders, our Court of Appeals recently said “no way.” On January 13, 2020, the Court of Appeals decided West Beach Condominium v. Commonwealth Insurance Company of America, ruling that the deadline in the insurer’s fine print could not bar the policyholder from pursuing IFCA and similar consumer protection claims.

West Beach, a West Seattle condo owners’ association, had insurance coverage for the condo complex through Commonwealth Insurance. West Beach found substantial water damage in the condo complex and made an insurance claim with Commonwealth on September 26, 2016.

In March of 2017, Commonwealth denied coverage. Commonwealth claimed that the water damage had been happening for the past ten years. Commonwealth’s insurance policy contained fine print requiring West Beach to sue within a year after the loss, i.e., within a year after the initial water damage.

West Beach sued, alleging that Commonwealth breached the insurance policy contract. West Beach also sued under IFCA and Washington’s Consumer Protection ACT (CPA). The lower court dismissed the entire lawsuit because the claimed damage occurred more than one year before West Beach filed suit.

The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered that the lower court should not have dismissed the IFCA and CPA claims. Commonwealth claimed on appeal that by failing to file suit by the contractual deadline, West Beach gave up its right to any insurance coverage. Therefore, Commonwealth argued, West Beach had no right to bring IFCA or CPA claims because it had given up its insurance coverage.

The Court of Appeals determined the suit limitation clause only prevented West Beach from filing a very specific type of claim for breach of the insurance policy contract. But, the court ruled, Commonwealth could not use the contractual deadline to immunize itself from suit under IFCA and the CPA. These statutes give policyholders rights that do not go away merely because the policyholder missed a deadline buried in the insurance policy.

The West Beach decision is important because it preserves policyholders’ rights under Washington’s consumer protection statutes. These laws exist to protect Washington policyholders from sharp practices. Allowing insurers to exempt themselves from these laws simply by adding arbitrary deadlines to their insurance policy fine print would allow insurers to circumvent these protections by using the very type of sharp practice these laws exist to prevent.