Case Number and Title United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit, Case Number 06-4335 Hunt Construction Group Inc. vs. Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company Parties Involved • Hunt Construction Group Inc.; Plaintiff-Appellant • Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company; Defendant-Appellee • Seventh Circuit of Appeals Presiding Judges: o Richard A. Posner o Joel M. Flaum o Daniel A. Manion Project Specifications (Name, Type, Contract Amount, Location) Name: Edward H. McNamara Midfield Terminal (Northwest WorldGateway) Type: Airport Main Terminal Contract Value: $420M Location: Detroit, Michigan Place and Date of Case Place: Detroit, Michigan Date Decided: October 1st, 2007 Summary: The Plaintiff, Hunt Construction …show more content…
The insurance policy issued to hunt did cover fire damage, as most builders risk policies due; however, it also covered almost every other kind of damage that a construction company might encounter as well, and Hunts damages were mostly caused due to water damage. In order for Allianz to call the builders risk policy a fire insurance policy, and subject the policy to have the Plaintiff seek indemnification that was not caused by fire or means covered in a “fire insurance policy”, there are several ramifications involved. Fire is one of the risks of a construction project against which Allianz’s policy insures; yet it is only one, and given the wide range coverage of the policy, it seemed odd to the presiding judges to classify it as a fire risk insurance policy. A fire insurance policy is subjected to 19 separate requirements, and until 1990, Michigan legislature, rather than trying to define “fire insurance policy”, provided that a “standard fire policy” (with all 19 mandatory minimum provisions) would not be required for a variety of types of insurance. The structure of this Michigan statute implied any form of insurance that was not exempt was a “standard fire policy”, including a builders risk policy, and so the 19 mandatory provisions would have to have been included when indemnity was sought after. However, this legislature was repealed in 1990, well before Allianz issued the
HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Inez Grant; Morehouse Parish School Board; Horace Mann Insurance Company and Lloyd Gray, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees.
Robert Chuckrow Construction Company (Chuckrow) was employed as the general contractor to build a Kinney Shoe Store. Chuckrow employed Ralph Gough to perform the carpentry work on the store. The contract with Gough stipulated that he was to provide all labor, materials, tools, equipment, scaffolding, and other items necessary to complete the carpentry work. Gough’s employees erected 38 trusses at the job site. The next day, 32 of the trusses fell off the building. The reason for the trusses having fallen was unexplained, and evidence showed that it was not due to Chuckrow’s fault or a deficiency in the building plans. Chuckrow told Gough that he would pay him to reerect the trusses and continue work. When the job was complete, Chuckrow paid Gough the original contract price but refused to pay him for the additional cost of reerecting the trusses. Gough sued Chuckrow for this expense. Can Gough recover?
Coverage: Appears to be proper. Insured has no PUP. Only an active Homeowners and Auto. Loss occurred on named insured property and the named insured is the responsible party. The lawn mower is under the 40hp exclusion, mower is 14hp.
This claim arises out of a lawsuit filed in Kane County, Illinois involving an incident at Johnny A’s Third Rail Pub, a local pub owned by the Insured, Beslidheje, Inc. Mr. Tefik Ashiku owns and operates the Insured corporate entity. The pub operates out of a building owned by the co-defendant, Junaid Zubairi. Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges negligence against both Beslidheje, Inc. and Zubairi, claiming that the stairway had insufficient or inoperative lighting at the time she fell.
My firm represents the Factory Mutual Insurance Company (“FM Global”) and the University of Maryland Medical System (“UMMS”) regarding the above-referenced subrogation matter. FM Global has asked that we pursue recovery of the damages sustained as a result of a loss that occurred on October 11, 2015, at 22 South Greene Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (the “Property”). The loss was the direct and proximate result of Skanska USA Building, Inc.’s (“Skanska’s”) faulty installation of a fire suppression installation system at the Property.
One of the principal grounds for rejecting insurance claims is that the claim is not covered by the terms of the policy, or is specifically excluded. The rule that coverage provisions should be interpreted broadly and exclusion clauses should be interpreted narrowly is really just a corollary of the Contra Proferentem rule which applies in the event of ambiguity i.e. it is the insurer who likely drafted the insurance contract and construing coverage provisions broadly, or exclusion clauses narrowly, will be to the detriment of the insurer as the party who drafted the contract. The construction of exclusion clauses and coverage provisions helps justify the objective intention of the contract. This is the intention which the court considers, a reasonable person in the position of the contracting parties, would have had. It is submitted that coverage provisions should be broad and encompassing and exclusion clauses should be narrow. However, before such a conclusion is reached, this paper will aim to justify the reasoning behind such a claim analysing arguments for and against such a proposition, drawing upon the landmark case Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd to help relate the discussion to issues raised by such considerations.
Co. v. Distrib. Servs., Inc., 320 F.3d 488, 490 (4th Cir. 2003); McGirt v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 399 F.Supp. 2d 655, 665 (D. Md. 2005), abrogated by McGirt v. Gulf Ins. Co., 207 Fed. Appx. 305 (4th Cir. 2006) (The MCS-90 serves the purpose of the MCA by “creating a suretyship by the insurer to protect the public when the policy otherwise provides no coverage to the insured, [and] ensures someone will pick up the tab when the public is injured by the carrier’s accident and the policy terms deny coverage.” (internal quotation
State Farm has asked whether it has a duty to defend the insured pursuant to the insured’s homeowners policy. It is our opinion that State Farm has no duty to defend the insured under the insured’s homeowners policy. The insured’s homeowners policy entitled the insured to a defense for “a suit brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence.” In this case, these elements initially triggering the insured’s homeowners policy are likely satisfied. Nevertheless, the SECTON II – Exclusions section provides that the liability coverage does not apply to any of the fifteen exclusions specifically enumerated therein.
9. “Insurance” means a contract that provides that for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to indemnify another against loss, damage, or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event.
In mid-September 2005, Ashley Swenson, the CFO of large CAD/CAM equipment producer must choose whether to pay out profits to the firm¡¦s investors or repurchase stock. On the off chance that Swenson pays out profits, she should likewise settle on the extent of the payout.
Answer: Property and casualty insurance protects property (houses, cars, boats, and so on) against losses due to accidents, fire, disasters, and other calamities. Property and casualty policies tend to be short-term contracts and, that’s why the subject to frequent renewal is, and one more characteristic feature is the absence of savings component. Property and casualty premiums are based on the probability of sustaining the loss. To estimate the key determinant of the price of an insurance policy, i.e. risks, insurance companies take third-party proceedings that develop models of catastrophe loss probabilities. Based on the numbers form Exhibit 5 of the case we see that
1. How strong are the competitive forces confronting Deere in the global market for agricultural and construction equipment?
How would you access Jack Lawler’s entry & contracting process at B.R Richardson? Would you have done anything differently?
DO YOU AGREE WITH MR. WILSON 'S ESTIMATE OF THE COMPANY 'S LOAN REQUIREMENTS? HOW MUCH WILL HE NEED TO FINANCE THE EXPECTED EXPANSION IN SALES TO $ 5.5 MILLION IN 2006 AND TO TAKE ALL TRADE DISCOUNTS?
I decided to choose ABYAT Furniture Company for my Assignment . In this paper, I am going to talk about ABYAT's history, structure and what services that they provide. Moreover, I am going to talk about achieving the six strategic, In addition, I am going to know about the threats type in ABYAT Company, also I will mention how supporting these levels through information Systems, how managers can affect build and use information systems the success of their company and how achieve operational excellence in terms of customer relationship management.