DOCSLIB.ORG

Progressive Damage Construction Defect Cases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Progressive Damage Construction Defect Cases CONSTRUCTION LAW Allocation of Risk Among Multiple Progressive Damage Insurers Construction By R. Michael Ethridge Defect Cases and Katherine W. Sullivan The landscape Deciding whether a construction defect claim is covered surrounding these issues by a contractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) pol- is constantly changing icy is always a sticky proposition. Among the most vexing and never boring. problems for coverage and defense counsel alike, in a case involving a progressive injury, is which Hypothetical Scenario insurance policy is implicated. Unlike the A general contractor builds a multimil- typical personal injury case that would lion dollar oceanfront home in 2005. At implicate only one CGL policy because the time of construction the general con- the injury would “occur” during one pol- tractor is insured under a standard CGL icy period, a progressive damage construc- policy, ISO Form CG 00 01 10 01. The anni- tion defect case creates a unique situation, versary date of the policy is January 1. Con- and depending on the state, multiple pol- struction began on June 1, 2005, and was icies can be triggered. Courts around the completed on April 1, 2006, with the certif- country have struggled with how to allo- icate of occupancy issued on May 1, 2006. cate damages among multiple insurers in Because of the collapse of the real estate these progressive damage cases. market, the general contractor goes out of This article will briefly attempt to business on December 31, 2008. address the different approaches that the In 2007, the homeowners notice water states have used to determine coverage coming into their home around windows triggers in construction cases as well as and doors and also begin to experience a the methods used by the states to allocate serious problem with mold growth on the risks among multiple insurers. The follow- interior walls. They contact the general ing hypothetical scenario will serve as the contractor who investigates and attempts framework for discussing some of the com- to perform certain repairs. The general plications that can arise when attempting contractor’s attempted repairs are not suc- to allocate damages in a progressive dam- cessful, and in October 2007, the home- age construction defect case. owners hire a lawyer who immediately ■ R. Michael Ethridge is a partner and Katherine W. Sullivan is an associate of Carlock Copeland & Stair in the firm’s Charleston, South Carolina, office. They are both regular contributors to the firm’s insurance -cov erage blog at http://www.insurancecoveragecorner.com/. Mr. Ethridge represents insurance companies, general contractors, construction design professionals, small business owners and others in insurance cov- erage and civil litigation. Ms. Sullivan focuses on general civil litigation, including construction, insurance coverage and bad faith, personal injury defense, and professional liability defense. 52 ■ For The Defense ■ June 2012 © 2012 DRI. All rights reserved. hires an engineering consultant to investi- the homeowners’ loss? “Trigger of cover- hypothetical “facts” may also trigger cover- gate the source of the water intrusion and age” is a term of art used to describe what age under each of the subsequent policies if to develop a repair plan delineating the must happen during the policy period for the water continued to intrude around the repair scope. The engineer’s report, dated the potential of coverage to arise. See Mon- windows and doors causing water dam- December 1st, 2007, identifies numerous trose Chem. Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 10 age in each subsequent year. However, construction deficiencies and building Cal. 4th 645, 655, n.2, 913 P.2d 878, 880, the known loss provision in the 2008 pol- code violations. The consultant concludes n.2 (Cal. 1995). In a typical general liability icy could preclude coverage from that pol- that these deficiencies are causing signifi- scenario, the trigger of coverage is a specific icy since the contractor became aware of cant water intrusion around windows and point in time when the personal injury or the problems in 2007. Therefore, under doors and mold growth on the interior property damage occurred. However, in the injury- in- fact theory, the “facts” would walls. The lawyer hires another consultant construction defect cases when damages likely trigger CGL policy two covering 2006 to provide an estimate for the repairs. The are progressive in nature, such as with and CGL policy three covering 2007. estimated cost of repairs is $1.75 million, water intrusion, it is more difficult to deter- given the extensive nature of the damages mine when coverage is triggered. Continuous Trigger Theory and construction deficiencies. The home- In a progressive damage construction Under this theory, the time of the under- owners file a lawsuit in February 2009. defect case, the states mainly use one of lying injury- causing event would trigger Litigation ensues, and the wheels of jus- three primary methods to determine the coverage for each policy in effect at that tice turn slowly. Frustrated with the way trigger of coverage. The majority of the time, and coverage would continue until that the case is proceeding, the judge spe- states apply either the injury- in- fact trigger the damage is complete. So in the hypo- cially sets a trial date of April 1, 2012, and theory or the continuous trigger theory. A thetical scenario above, the “facts” would orders the parties to complete mediation by limited number of states use the manifes- likely trigger coverage from the date that February 1, 2012. tation trigger theory to determine which the certificate of occupancy was issued, On January 15, 2012, the parties convene policies may be triggered by a progressive May 1, 2006, until the date that the damage the court- ordered mediation. The general damage case. is complete. Similarly, the known loss pro- contractor is present, as are representa- vision in the policy would likely preclude tives from the various insurance carriers Injury-in-Fact Theory coverage for all policies after the contrac- that have provided coverage to the general Under the injury- in- fact theory, cover- tor became aware of the problems in 2007. contractor during the period of continuous age is triggered when property damage Therefore, under the continuous trigger damage. All of the insurers are present and occurs during the policy period. For cov- theory, the hypothetical facts likely would accompanied by coverage counsel as well. erage to arise under a particular policy, trigger CGL policy two covering 2006 and The general contractor is insured as follows property damage must occur during the CGL policy three covering 2007. for the relevant period: policy period. Because the injury- in- fact • CGL policy one, covering 2005, $250,000 theory typically is interpreted to trigger Manifestation Theory limits each insurance policy when property dam- Under the manifestation theory, cover- • CGL policy two, covering 2006, $250,000 age occurs during the policy period, in age is triggered when property damage limits progressive damage construction defect is discovered or should have reasonably • CGL policy three, covering 2007, 500,000 cases, the application of the injury- in- fact been discovered. Coverage will be limited limits with a 2294 endorsement rule can be remarkably similar to the con- to the policy that covers the period when • CGL policy four, covering 2008, $500,000 tinuous trigger rule, discussed below. For the damage is discovered. This theory is limits example, water damage resulting from applied to construction defect claims in a • Uninsured in 2009 construction defects often continues to limited number of states such as Florida, • Uninsured in 2010 occur every year until someone repairs the Louisiana, and New Jersey. See, e.g., Mid- • Uninsured in 2011 defects. In such a case, each policy would Continent Cas. Co. v. Siena Home Corp., While a standard CGL policy gener- be triggered on the date of the first property 2011 WL 2784200 (M.D. Fla. July 8, 2011); ally does not cover construction deficien- damage and continue through a settlement Rando v. Top Notch Props., L.L.C., 879 So. cies, many states have concluded that water or judgment or until someone repairs the 2d 821 (La. Ct. App. 2004); Winding Hills intrusion that causes property damage is property damage-causing condition. Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. N. Am. Specialty Ins. an accident that potentially would impli- In the hypothetical scenario outlined Co., 332 N.J. Super. 85, 752 A.2d 837 (N.J. cate coverage. For purposes of this factual above, the “facts” could trigger coverage Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000). scenario, assume water intrusion can qual- as early as 2006, on the date of substantial In the hypothetical scenario above, cov- ify as an occurrence. completion, should the plaintiffs success- erage would have likely been triggered fully demonstrate that the construction under the manifestation theory for the Trigger of Coverage defects led to some level of water intrusion 2007 policy, CGL policy three, when the For purposes of the coverage analysis in upon completion of the work, even if the homeowners noticed water intrusion our hypothetical scenario, the threshold homeowners did not know about it until around the windows and doors and began question is which policies are triggered for 2007. Under the injury- in- fact theory, the to experience mold growth, unless the For The Defense ■ June 2012 ■ 53 CONSTRUCTION LAW insurer introduced evidence showing that have used these provisions with varying CGL coverage throughout the entire pro- the homeowners should have discovered success, and how courts will apply them gressive damage period. the problems sooner. For example, a Flor- often depends on the specific facts in a case. The seminal case endorsing the joint- ida court recently determined that cover- Id. at 440. and- several approach is the asbestos- age is triggered under the manifestation A large majority of the states apply either related case, Keene Corp.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2020-2022 What-Comm Guild Public Safety Dispatch (PDF)
    2020-2022 AGREEMENT Between THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON And THE WHAT-COMM DISPATCHERS GUILD INDEX Article 1: Recognition ......................................................................................... 1 Article 2: Guild Security ..................................................................................... 1 Article 3: Management Rights............................................................................ 1 Article 4: Non-Discrimination............................................................................. 2 Article 5: Duty To Bargain .................................................................................. 2 Article 6: Labor Management Committee ......................................................... 3 Article 7: Definitions ........................................................................................... 3 Article 8: Master Dispatcher Program ............................................................... 4 Article 9: Job Share Program............................................................................. 6 Article 10: Quality Assurance Program ............................................................ 9 Article 11: Hours Of Work And Working Conditions ..................................... 10 Article 12: Overtime And Compensatory Time ............................................... 13 Article 13: Involuntary Recall To Duty ............................................................ 16 Article 14: Shift Rotation Bidding And Vacation Bidding ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Insurance Law Alert December 2009
    INSURANCE LAW ALERT DECEMBER 2009 elcome to the inaugural Simpson Thacher Insurance Law Alert. This Alert and the Weditions to follow aim to provide timely reports on insurance law and litigation developments of interest to our friends and clients. We hope you find them useful. —Barry R. Ostrager, Chair of the Litigation Department from Houdaille Industries, Inc. Thereafter, Warren and Allocation Alert: Viking faced numerous asbestos bodily injury claims Delaware Chancery Court Rules arising from asbestos exposures that took place during That New York Law Requires Houdaille’s ownership. Warren and Viking sought to access Houdaille’s insurance coverage, including “All Sums” Method Of Allocation forty-five excess insurance policies issued by twenty On October 14, 2009, different insurers. After determining that Warren Vice Chancellor Strine and Viking were entitled to insured status under of the Delaware Court Houdaille’s excess insurance policies, the court turned of Chancery issued to the allocation issue. a lengthy opinion on The excess insurers argued that controlling New allocation under New York precedent requires a pro rata allocation across York insurance law. In policy years, as set forth in the Consol. Edison v. Allstate a surprising departure Ins. Co., 774 N.E.2d 687 (N.Y. 2002) decision from from what is viewed New York’s highest court. The insureds argued for an to be well-established “all sums” approach. Vice Chancellor Strine ultimately New York law, the court decided that New York’s principles of contract held that coverage for interpretation, the language of the insurance policies asbestos-related injuries at issue, and extrinsic evidence all favor application spanning multiple policy years should be allocated on of the all sums allocation methodology.
    [Show full text]
  • Pub 100-01 Medicare General Information, Eligibility, and Entitlement
    Department of Health & CMS Manual System Human Services (DHHS) Pub 100-01 Medicare General Information, Centers for Medicare & Eligibility, and Entitlement Medicaid Services (CMS) Transmittal 89 Date: November 21, 2014 Change Request 8982 SUBJECT: Update to Medicare Deductible, Coinsurance and Premium Rates for 2015 I. SUMMARY OF CHANGES: This recurring CR provides instruction for Medicare Contractors to update the claims processing system with the new CY 2015 Medicare rates. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2015 *Unless otherwise specified, the effective date is the date of service. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: January 5, 2015 Disclaimer for manual changes only: The revision date and transmittal number apply only to red italicized material. Any other material was previously published and remains unchanged. However, if this revision contains a table of contents, you will receive the new/revised information only, and not the entire table of contents. II. CHANGES IN MANUAL INSTRUCTIONS: (N/A if manual is not updated) R=REVISED, N=NEW, D=DELETED-Only One Per Row. R/N/D CHAPTER / SECTION / SUBSECTION / TITLE R 3/10/10.3/Basis for Determining the Part A Coinsurance Amounts R 3/20/20.2/Part B Annual Deductible R 3/20/20.6/Part B Premium III. FUNDING: For Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs): The Medicare Administrative Contractor is hereby advised that this constitutes technical direction as defined in your contract. CMS does not construe this as a change to the MAC statement of Work. The contractor is not obliged to incur costs in excess of the amounts allotted in your contract unless and until specifically authorized by the Contracting Officer.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 of 1 DOCUMENT New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide
    Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide Copyright 2009, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. Volume 3: Separate Insurance Lines Chapter 39 UNDERSTANDING MULTIPLE INSURER SITUATIONS IV. UNDERSTANDING HOW COURTS ALLOCATE LIABILITY AMONG CONSECUTIVE INSURERS. 3-39 New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide 39.12 AUTHOR: by Alan S. RutkinRobert TuganderJohn W. Egan 39.12 Examine Approaches to Allocation. Jurisdictions vary as to how to apportion a loss among multiple insurers, and insureds, where a progressive injury extends across multiple policy periods. Courts typically subscribe to one of two allocation theories: (1) pro rata apportionment; or (2) joint and several liability. The method selected may dramatically affect allocation results. The key differences to these two approaches concerns how loss is apportioned to impaired years, sometimes referred to as ''orphan shares.'' Policyholders prefer the joint and several approach because it allows the policyholder to maximize its coverage and avoid having to pay for self-insured or impaired years. Conversely, insurers prefer pro rata allocation because the responsibility to pay for impaired years remains with the insured. Legal Topics: For related research and practice materials, see the following legal topics: Insurance LawClaims & ContractsCoinsuranceGeneral OverviewInsurance LawGeneral Liability InsuranceCoverageTriggersContinuous TriggersInsurance LawGeneral Liability InsuranceCoverageTriggersMultiple TriggersInsurance LawGeneral Liability InsuranceMultiple Insurers Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide Copyright 2009, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. Volume 3: Separate Insurance Lines Chapter 39 UNDERSTANDING MULTIPLE INSURER SITUATIONS IV. UNDERSTANDING HOW COURTS ALLOCATE LIABILITY AMONG CONSECUTIVE INSURERS. 3-39 New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide 39.13 AUTHOR: by Alan S.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase 6 Five-Year Review of Certain Uniform Standards Effective on Or Before December 31, 2010
    SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE ITEMS 5-Year Review, Phase 6 (Certain Uniform Standards Effective On or Before December 31, 2010) Substantive Change Items Substantive change items are proposed amendments to the Uniform Standards that would change or alter the meaning, application or interpretation of the provision. Substantive change items would likely impact not only the Uniform Standards but product filings submitted to the IIPRC and would be the equivalent to a change in an individual state’s laws or regulations. When looking at the substantive change items, the scope of review should consider whether circumstances or underlying assumptions have changed since the last time the rule was adopted, amended or reviewed. List of Substantive Change Items 1. Revision of Misstatement of Age Provision 2. Allowance for Non-Duplication of Benefits 3. Rate Requirements for Dollar-for-Dollar Long-Term Care Benefits 4. Scope of Partnership Certification or Approval of Compact-approved Policy 37 | P a g e SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE ITEMS 5-Year Review, Phase 6 (Certain Uniform Standards Effective On or Before December 31, 2010) 1. REVISION OF MISSTATEMENT OF AGE PROVISION APPLIES: §3.S. Misstatement of Age or Sex of the Core Standards for Individual Long-Term Care Insurance Policies CURRENT PROVISION: (1) The policy shall contain a misstatement of age provision or, if the policy is written on a sex distinct basis, a misstatement of age or sex provision, providing that the amount payable as a benefit shall be such as the premium paid would have purchased at the correct age or the correct age and sex. COMMENTS: Industry Comment: The IAC requested that the IIPRC amend the Misstatement of Age or Sex provision to provide that a company may terminate coverage and refund premiums if the correct issue age of the insured is misstated at the time the policy is issued and is outside the issue age ranges of the policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Cooperative Interest Appraisal Report
    Lic #: 48000040179 Main File No. 1250027 Page #1 Individual Cooperative Interest Appraisal Report File # 1250027 The purpose of this summary appraisal report is to provide the lender/client with an accurate, and adequately supported, opinion of the market value of the subject property. Property Address CENTRAL PARK WEST Unit # City NEW YORK State NY Zip Code 10025-7659 Borrower *REMOVED* Current Owner *REMOVED* County NEW YORK Legal Description BLOCK : 1205 Project Name ARDSLEY TENANTS CORP. Phase # 1 Map Reference 3 Z 11 Census Tract 0177.00 Occupant Owner Tenant (Market Rent) Tenant (Regulated Rent) Vacant Monthly Maintenance Fee $ *REMOVED* per year per month Property Rights Appraised Cooperative Other Expiration Date of Proprietary Lease *REMOVED* Special Assessments $0.00 Assignment Type Purchase Transaction Refinance Transaction Other (describe) SUBJECT Lender/Client *REMOVED* Address Is the subject property currently offered for sale or has it been offered for sale in the twelve months prior to the effective date of this appraisal? Yes No Report data source(s) used, offering price(s), and date(s). I did did not analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction. Explain the results of the analysis of the contract for sale or why the analysis was not performed. N/A Contract Price $ REFINANC Date of Contract N/A Is the property seller the current owner? Yes No Data Source(s) N/A Is there any financial assistance (loan charges, sale concessions, gift or downpayment assistance, etc.) to be paid by any party on behalf of the borrower? Yes No CONTRACT If Yes, report the total dollar amount and describe the items to be paid.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Risk Management and Insurance
    GLOBAL EDITION Principles of Risk Management and Insurance Rejda • McNamara Rejda THIRTEENTH EDITION George E. Rejda • Michael J. McNamara The Pearson Series in Finance Berk/DeMarzo Keown Corporate Finance†* Personal Finance: Turning Money into Wealth* † Corporate Finance: The Core * Keown/Martin/Petty Berk/DeMarzo/Harford Foundations of Finance: The Logic and Practice of Fundamentals of Corporate Finance†* Financial Management†* Brooks Madura Financial Management: Core Concepts†* Personal Finance* Copeland/Weston/Shastri Marthinsen Financial Theory and Corporate Policy Risk Takers: Uses and Abuses of Financial Derivatives Dorfman/Cather McDonald Introduction to Risk Management and Insurance Derivatives Markets Fundamentals of Derivatives Markets Eakins/McNally Mishkin/Eakins Corporate Finance Online* Financial Markets and Institutions† Eiteman/Stonehill/Moffett Moffett/Stonehill/Eiteman Multinational Business Finance†* Fundamentals of Multinational Finance† Fabozzi Nofsinger Bond Markets: Analysis and Strategies Psychology of Investing Foerster Pennacchi Financial Management: Concepts and Applications†* Theory of Asset Pricing Frasca Rejda/McNamara Personal Finance Principles of Risk Management and Insurance† Gitman/Zutter Smart/Gitman/Joehnk Principles of Managerial Finance†* Fundamentals of Investing†* † Principles of Managerial Finance—Brief Edition * Solnik/McLeavey Haugen Global Investments The Inefficient Stock Market: What Pays Off and Why Titman/Keown/Martin Modern Investment Theory Financial Management: Principles and Applications* Holden Titman/Martin Excel Modeling in Corporate Finance Valuation: The Art and Science of Corporate Investment Excel Modeling in Investments Decisions Hughes/MacDonald Weston/Mitchell/Mulherin International Banking: Text and Cases Takeovers, Restructuring, and Corporate Governance Hull Fundamentals of Futures and Options Markets† Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives† * Denotes titles with MyFinanceLab. Log onto www.myfinancelab.com to learn more. † Denotes availability of Global Edition.
    [Show full text]
  • DB MF PW RCSTD 0314.Pdf
    DB/MF/PW/RCSTD/0314 10 things to do before you go Important 1. Check the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) travel Under the new travel directive from the European Union (EU), advice online at www.gov.uk/knowbeforeyougo. you are entitled to claim compensation from your airline if any of the following happen. 2. Get travel insurance and check that the cover is appropriate. 1. You are not allowed to board or your flight is cancelled. If you check-in on time but you are not allowed to board 3. Get a good guidebook and get to know the place you are because there are too many passengers for the number of going to. Find out about local laws and customs. seats available or your flight is cancelled, the airline operating the flight must offer you financial compensation. 4. Make sure you have a valid passport and any visas you need. 2. There are long delays. If you are delayed for two hours or more, the airline must 5. Check what vaccinations you need at least six weeks before offer you meals and refreshments, hotel accommodation you go. and communication facilities. If you are delayed for more than five hours, the airline must also offer to refund your 6. Check to see if you need to take extra health precautions ticket. (visit www.nhs.uk/travelhealth) 3. Your baggage is damaged, lost or delayed. 7. Make sure whoever you book your trip through is a If your checked-in baggage is damaged or lost by an EU member of the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) airline, you must make a claim to the airline within seven or the Air Travel Organisers' Licensing scheme (ATOL).
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Guidelines
    Conventional Cooperative Guidelines Contents Cooperatives...................................................................................................................................................2 Documentation Requirements.........................................................................................................................2 Eligibility Requirements .................................................................................................................................2 Ineligible Project ...........................................................................................................................................3 Amendments to Doc uments ...........................................................................................................................4 Ass ignment of Co-Op’s Lease/Occupancy Rights ..............................................................................................4 Appraisal .....................................................................................................................................................4 Blanket Mortgage .........................................................................................................................................4 Budget ........................................................................................................................................................5 Calculating LTV Ratio....................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Care Insurance Products and Addressing the 'Use It Or Lose It' Concern
    Issue Brief Long-Term Care Insurance Products and Addressing the ‘Use It or Lose It’ Concern FEBRUARY 2020 Key Points Introduction • Tax policy in the past has provided incentives for the purchase of long- Existing public programs do not provide financing for term care insurance (LTCI), but those long-term care (LTC) needs unless someone meets incentives have come with some the asset and income requirements of state Medicaid product design restrictions. • One restriction on tax-qualified programs. To fill that void, private long-term care LTCI products is that, other than a insurance (LTCI) has been offered to provide financing return-of-premium feature, they are for the LTC needs especially of importance given the not allowed to have any kind of cash value feature. This creates a “use it or growing elderly population. This coverage has taken lose it” concern for some consumers. many forms. Currently the stand-alone LTCI market has • Various life and annuity combination been contracting while the combination products market products have emerged that address the “use it or lose it” issue by has been expanding. This issue brief provides a brief providing value to consumers even if history of these products and explores how a cash value the LTC benefits are not needed. LTCI design might provide additional consumer options. • Tax law changes that allow cash values on qualified LTCI could address “use it or lose it” concerns for some consumers and provide An Evolving Marketplace and additional premium flexibility. Regulatory Environment Early versions of LTCI policies issued in the mid- to late-1980s primarily provided nursing facility coverage with limited coverage for home and community-based care.
    [Show full text]
  • Underwriting Requirements ______
    UNDERWRITING REQUIREMENTS _____________________________ Purpose: The purpose of the Underwriting Requirements is to conveniently set out all of the matters prescribed, issued or made by the Council or Franchise Board under the Underwriting Byelaw, the Intermediaries Byelaw, the Overseas Underwriting Byelaw, the Membership Byelaw and the Enforcement Byelaw. The Underwriting Requirements also contain links to Market Bulletins where they contain further relevant information. The headings for each of the parts of the Underwriting Requirements correspond with the headings for each of the parts in the relevant Byelaw. The headings for each of the paragraphs of the Underwriting Requirements also include references to the relevant paragraphs in the Byelaw under which the requirements were prescribed, issued or made. The headings and these notes are for guidance only and do not form part of the Underwriting Requirements. Words and terms shown in italics have the meaning set out in the Definitions Byelaw. With the exception of certain of the requirements in Chapter 1 and the requirements in Chapter 2, these requirements (version 6) were made by Council on 7 December 2005 when Council made the requirements contained at Chapter 4 (requirements made under the Membership Byelaw) and the requirements contained in Chapter 5 (requirements made under the Enforcement Byelaw). These requirements (version 6) came into force on 7 December 2005 and amend and supercede the Underwriting Requirements that came into force on 18 July 2005. The requirements made at Chapter 1 (requirements made under the Underwriting Byelaw) at paragraph 7(e) and paragraph 10A were made by the Council on 4 February 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Y3020 Us Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002
    Market Bulletin One Lime Street London EC3M 7HA FROM: Director, Worldwide Markets LOCATION: G12 EXTENSION: 5998 DATE: 31/03/2003 REFERENCE: Y3020 SUBJECT: U.S.TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE ACT OF 2002: NY INSURANCE DEPARTMENT TERRORISM REGULATION SUBJECT AREA(S): US commercial P & C business ACTION POINTS: DEADLINE: Immediate Purpose of bulletin To notify the market that, on the 10th March 2003, the New York Insurance Department promulgated emergency amendments to Regulations 57 and 41 to take effect upon filing with the New York Secretary of State (this filing subsequently occurred on the 13 March 2003). These amendments taken together require both admitted and excess (surplus) lines insurers to return premium to insureds on a pro-rata basis upon cancellation of that portion of a policy that covers an "insured loss" (as defined under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA)), where the premium for such coverage is divisible from the remainder of the policy premium. The regulations are only effective prospectively from 13th March 2003, applying to policies issued or renewed on or after this date. Background to the Act The Federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA), which came into effect in November 2002, provides a federal backstop for commercial lines property and casualty insurance covering "acts of terrorism". It imposes obligations on encompassed property and casualty insurers, and also takes aim at improving the availability and affordability of insurance for losses arising out of certain acts of terrorism. The Program is administered and implemented by the US Treasury and further information is available on their website at www.treasury.gov/trip.
    [Show full text]