[ad_1]
The very best bets are these which might be assured winners, as they aren’t really bets in any respect. Insurance coverage firms would favor a state of affairs the place it’s “heads I win, tails you lose.” One doesn’t want an actuarial diploma to know that accumulating premiums on dangers that may by no means lead to payouts is a worthwhile technique.
What happens when an insurance coverage firm denies protection because of the situation of a constructing, is conscious that the insured constructing doesn’t qualify for added protection, but continues to just accept premiums? Does this act of accepting premiums negate the unique grounds for denial?
These info and points had been introduced in a latest Mississippi case.1 The unique denial was based mostly on these info:
By letter dated March 23, 2021, Ohio Casualty denied plaintiff’s declare for coverage advantages for the loss, citing the next coverage provision:
COVERAGE LIMITATION
‘We’ solely cowl a vacant ‘present constructing’ for 60 consecutive days from the inception date of this coverage except constructing permits have been obtained and rehabilitation or renovation work has begun on the ‘present constructing’.
The corporate concluded there was no protection for the loss, as its investigation confirmed that on the time of the loss, Sinjel had not commenced renovations nor had constructing permits been issued, and greater than sixty days had handed for the reason that coverage took impact on April 15, 2020.
After the denial, the insurance coverage firm stored billing, and the insured stored paying the premiums. The constructing was vacant and in a hearth loss situation. The insurance coverage firm by no means returned the premiums.
The policyholder made the next argument:
Sinjel maintains, nevertheless, that Ohio Casualty waived Sinjel’s noncompliance with the emptiness clause or any protection to protection by persevering with to just accept Sinjel’s premium funds after it was conscious that Sinjel had not well timed obtained permits and commenced rehabilitation/renovation work.
The courtroom disagreed and located that no waiver of the exclusion or denial ever occurred:
The truth that Ohio Casualty obtained and retained Sinjel’s premium fee can’t moderately be discovered to function as a waiver in mild of the undisputed incontrovertible fact that Ohio Casualty not solely had already unequivocally denied Sinjel’s declare for the November 2020 hearth loss earlier than receiving the premium fee nevertheless it additionally did so once more after receiving the premium fee. Ohio Casualty’s actions plainly don’t ‘proof[e] an intention completely to give up the correct’ to disclaim/defend Sinjel’s declare.
Some might query if the doctrine of waiver didn’t apply, what about estoppel? The courtroom made this discovering in a footnote about estoppel:
“Sinjel refers in its memoranda to ideas of each waiver and estoppel. There isn’t any factual foundation for estoppel. Estoppel, not like waiver, ‘includes some component of reliance or prejudice on the a part of the insured earlier than an insurer is foreclosed from elevating a floor for denial of legal responsibility that was recognized at an earlier date.’ Pitts By and By means of Pitts v. American Sec. Life Ins. Co., 931 F.second 351, 357 (fifth Cir. 1991) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 894(1) (1977). There isn’t any allegation of any factual foundation to help a discovering of such reliance by or prejudice to Sinjel.”
Ohio Casualty seems to be accumulating premiums with none danger of ever paying on that guess. How candy that have to be for Ohio Casualty.
Thought For The Day
I’ll guess this, although: in 100 years, individuals will probably be writing much more dissertations on Harry Potter than on John Updike.
—Brent Weeks
1 Sinjel v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., No. 3:22-cv-419 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 14, 2023).
[ad_2]