Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How Do You Know When Your Loss Ensues?
An ensuing loss provision is an exception to an exclusion in a first-party property policy that applies where the damage caused by an excluded peril operates as a link in the “chain of events” that enables a covered peril to damage other property. See IRMI Glossary of Insurance and Management Terms, http://bit.ly/1aPLMLA. The effect of the provision is that ensuing losses stemming from uncovered events will be covered, as long as such losses would otherwise be covered under the policy. Consequently, an understanding of the provision is vital to commercial property landlords and tenants.
Ensuing loss provisions are found in all risk policies, including commercial first-party property policies and builder's risk policies. See Acme Galvanizing Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 221 Cal. App. 3d 170 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1990) (commercial first party); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 46592 (D. Or. 2005) (commercial first party), aff'd, 250 Fed. Appx. 221 (9th Cir. 2007); Alton Ochsner Med. Found. v. Broadmoor Constr., 219 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. La. 2000) (builder's risk); and Laquila Constr., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Illinois, 66 F. Supp. 2d 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (builder's risk).
This article provides an overall review of ensuing loss provisions and their application by courts across the United States. Judicial interpretation of ensuing loss provisions is not consistent and is highly fact-intensive. An example of an ensuing loss is a water leak that causes an electrical short, which starts a fire. “The damage caused by the fire is a covered ensuing loss because it is an unforeseeable event occurring 'wholly separate from the defective property itself,' and, but for the excluded peril, would otherwise be a covered loss.” Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Lillard-Roberts, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20384 (D. Or. 2002), quoting Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 139 F. Supp. 2d 1374, 1380 (S.D. Fla. 2001).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?