The court cases in the Dec Page come from Connecticut, Kansas, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and from Michigan .

The Supreme Court of Connecticut tackled a dispute over whether injuries arose out of the use of a motor vehicle. House guests suffered serious injuries after their host left her car running overnight in an attached garage and the house filled up with carbon monoxide. The court ruled that the insured does not have to be actually driving the car at the time of the accident for the “arising out of the use” phrase in the insurance policy to be applicable. The Kansas Supreme Court offered an in depth analysis and discussion of the economic loss doctrine in its case. The court reviewed the case law on the subject from various jurisdictions and made the point that the doctrine should not bar claims by homeowners seeking to recover economic damages resulting from negligently performed construction services. The U.S. District Court in Virginia addressed the Chinese drywall controversy and whether the pollution exclusion prevented coverage for a property damage claim. The last case comes from Michigan where the U.S. Court of Appeals had to decide if the flood policy did not cover the property damage claim made by the insured since he allegedly failed to comply with the proof-of-loss requirements contained in the policy.

Questions and Answers

Does the insured's direct primary garagekeepers liability coverage automatically make the insured liable for the damages, regardless of the claimant's responsibility to maintain his car? See Direct Primary Coverage under GKLL. The insured accidentally started a forest fire. No claim for property damage was made but fire fighting expenses arose. Should the general liability policy respond to a claim for the fire fighting expenses? See Fire Fighting Expenses as Property Damage.

The CGL policy has a corporation as the named insured. The executive officer of the corporation owns the building in his capacity as an individual and leases the building to the corporation. Does the executive officer have automatic general liability coverage under the corporation's CGL form or does he need a separate liability policy? See Who Is an Insured Coverage and Executive Officer. The insured dropped a trailer from his crane and damaged both the trailer and its contents. Does the care, custody, or control exclusion on the CGL form apply to the property damage claim? See Care, Custody, or Control Exclusion and Dropped Trailer.

Inland Marine Case Study

When a load of diaper material becomes wet, is that due to water or wetness? The claim for property damage was denied based on an exclusion for wetness or dampness, but the policy provided coverage for water damage. So, which side prevailed? See Inland Marine Case Study.

Ensuing Loss

There is at times a fine line between a direct loss and an ensuing loss. There may be few questions about coverage for direct losses, but since ensuing losses are actually exceptions to an exclusion, questions may arise as to coverage. This article discusses what exactly an ensuing loss is and the difference and the differences in available coverage. See Ensuing Loss.

Arson—Recovery by Innocent Coinsureds

Public policy against allowing a wrong-doer to profit from his own wrongful act precludes an insured from recovering insurance proceeds under a property policy for an act of arson committed by that insured. Traditionally, provisions of property policies have put contractual force to this public policy and have been used by insurers as a defense against fire insurance claims made by arsonists.

However, the case of the innocent coinsured—another person qualifying as an insured under the policy, who has no knowledge of, and no part in, the fraudulent act—has not been so clear.

For a discussion of litigation in this area, see Arson—Recovery by Innocent Coinsureds.