قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Travelers win judgment over damage to pool roof: Court of Appeals

Travelers win judgment over damage to pool roof: Court of Appeals



A federal appellate court has upheld a decision in favor of a Traveler Cos entity. Inc. who denied a property owner’s claim involving the roof of a pool, stating that the damage was known prior to the insurance period.

Newport Beach, California-based Monterey Property Associates Anaheim LLC requested defense and indemnity from Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America after being sued by a tenant, Fitness International LLC, following Wednesday’s decision by the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco in Monterey Property Associates Anaheim, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America and Does, 1 to 10.

Fitness International, which operates as LA Fitness, claimed that the MPAA̵

7;s refusal to repair a broken roof over the pool in accordance with its lease damaged it by forcing LA Fitness to permanently close the pool due to the health and safety risks posed by the roof. . , it said in the verdict.

Travelers denied coverage based on an insurance exclusion from property that the insured owns or rents and a lack of coverage for property damage that was known prior to the insurance period.

The MPAA sued for breach of contract and violation of the implied union of good faith and fair settlement in the U.S. District Court in Pasadena, which ruled in favor of the insurer.

A unanimous three-judge appeals court panel upheld the verdict. “In accordance with the travel insurance, property damage is not covered if the insured knew that all or part of the damage had already occurred before the insurance period,” the panel’s decision stated.

“The district court implicitly held – and there is ample evidence in the minutes to support – that the MPAA was aware of damage to the roof over the LA Fitness pool before the insurance period began.”

The ruling did not agree with MPPA’s argument that the pool closure was not a continuation of the roof damage because it was “a different type of loss, to a different property, at a different time.”

“Since known roof damage is the only stated cause of the pool closure found anywhere in the record, we conclude that the pool closure was excluded for coverage under the insurance as a known loss, and the district court granted the correct summary judgment in favor of the traveler,” it said.

Lawyers in the case did not respond to a request for comment.


Source link