قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The insurer wins border coverage dispute in apartment fire

The insurer wins border coverage dispute in apartment fire



An apartment complex owner is not entitled to the full limits of his property policy when only one apartment house was destroyed, a federal appeal court said in maintaining a lower court.

St. Louis-based Norwood-Redfield Apartments Limited Partnership owns an apartment complex consisting of 32 buildings, according to Thursday's judgment of the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeal in St. Louis in Norwood-Redfield Apartments Limited Partnership against American Family Mutual Insurance Co., and Wisconsin Corp.

A December 2010 fire destroyed a building and injured two others, according to judgment. Madison, the Wisconsin-based American Family Mutual, who insured the complex during a business owner's insurance, paid Norwood $ 2.9 million for the loss.

Norwood brought an action against the insurer who claimed that he was entitled to receive the $ 31

.8 million threshold and to pay the insurer with breach of contract and violent refusal to pay.

The United States District Court in St. Louis decided on the insurer, which was upheld by a unanimous three judge's appeal panel. "Norwood claims it suffered a" total loss of insured property "because one of its buildings was completely destroyed. Norwood argues that" total loss "refers to how badly the building was damaged, not how many buildings were damaged," they said.

But "Because fire destroyed only one building in the thirty-two building complex Norwood does not suffer a" total loss of insured property "and thus the Missouri Charter requires not the US family to pay the full amount," the court said in confirmation of the court's judgment.

American family lawyer Anthony L. Martin, counsel with Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard PC in St. Louis, said: "The court really decided on the basis of" the insurance policy. "The position the plaintiff took was never entitled to Missouri Law or the policy," he said.

Norwood's lawyer could not be reached immediately for comment. [8] The 8th circuit ruled in January that the US family was entitled to deny coverage to a marketing company responsible for violating the Consumer Protection Act for telephones because it had properly notified its policyholder of a policy exclusion.

                    


Source link