| Author |
Message |
David P Bennett
Registered User
Username: Whitey
Post Number: 34
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 5:04 pm: | |
Ok, here's the language from the CP0030. CIVIL AUTHORITY. We will pay for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain and necessary Extra Expense caused by action of civil authority that prohibits access to the described premises due to direct physical loss of or damage to property, other than at the described premises, caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss. The coverage for Business Income will begin 72 hours after the time of that action and will apply for a period of up to three consecutive weeks afer coverage begins.
The coverage for Extra Expense will begin immediately after the time of that action and will end. 1 3 consecutive weeks after the time of that action; or 2 When your Business Income coverage ends; whichever is later.
My point was that the civil authority coverage requires that the civil authority prohibit access due to direct physical damage to property other than the described premises caused by a Covered Cause of Loss. As I opined, I am agreement that the restriction of access to the areas in New York and around the Pentagon due to the damage would and should be considered under the Civil Authority extension. As for the nationwide shutdown of the airports I believe the order to shutdown (especially Reagan) was not due to the damage, but due to 1) prevention of possible further hijackings and 2) security issues. Anyway, I am sure this will end up in the courts. One can only hope that the courts will adhere to the policy wording. As New York may be the venue, my recollection is that they hold pretty true to the policy language. We will just have to wait and see. |
JimLakes
Registered User
Username: Jimlakes
Post Number: 68
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 11:31 am: | |
Bill and All,
Here is another article that I ran across, that deals with this subject. It can be found at:
http://webpublisher.lexisnexis.com/index_edit.asp?layout=story&gid=360001236&did=45BH-V5Y0-00X7-M19J-00000-00&cid=1130005713&b=s
Jim Lakes, RPA
National Catastrophe Director
RAC Adjustments, Inc.
866.241.6574
|
D Wong Whey
Registered User
Username: Dwongwhey
Post Number: 87
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 7:48 pm: | |
Bill and others, you will note in my earlier post that I acknowledged the propriety of BI claims under the 'civil authority' provisions of policies with such language for the FAA shutdown.
In my opinion Bill is correct that coverage is available and due when and where re there is a BI loss from the FAA shutdown for airport area vendors, and David is correct otherwise when in a non civil authority scenario, it is necessary that there be direct physical loss in order to trigger BI coverage.
The loss which Bill earlier described concerning the restaurant reputation damage due to rumor and innuendo was a matter of slander and libel in the form of an advertising injury which is a tort. And there might actually be some legal defense coverage albeit likely limited, for the perpetrator of the initial rumor under the liability provisions of the insurance contract. However I cannot see any scenario where BI coverage would be available nor intended under any insurance contract absent actual direct physical damage from a covered cause of loss.
(Message edited by dwongwhey on March 17, 2002) |
JimLakes
Registered User
Username: Jimlakes
Post Number: 67
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 3:26 pm: | |
Bill,
You, as usual, pose a very interesting question and one that I do not have the answer to. I, like you, am still learning.
I don’t know if anyone on this site will have an answer to the question you posed. Not that there are not some great minds on here, but because of the issue of 9/11, as I stated in a post about 5 months ago, I think that lawsuits will be filed for many years to come concerning insurance issues and coverages for BI claims.
I refer you to the Mealeys Report On Line concerning lawsuits and issues of insurance coverage. Here is a little of what is being said about this issue.
The case in question is about this exact thing. A company that owns two hotels in New Orleans, LA., is suing and the case is to be heard in NY as prescribed by the new law just recently passed by congress that is:
In response to the terrorist attacks, Congress passed and the president signed into law the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, which sets forth the federal cause of action for damages arising out of the attacks. The law says the Southern District of New York court "shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all actions brought for any claim (including any claim for loss of property, personal injury, or death) resulting from or relating to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001."
I feel that the reason for this law is that the government knows that there are going to be claims and lawsuits about this for years to come and it is in a realm of area where “no man has gone before,” if you will. The report that I am referring to is at:
../1/4248.html"#f7f7f7"> | William S. Cook
Registered User
Username: Wscook
Post Number: 36
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 11:49 am: | |
Dave
Thanks for responding, CADO reports sometimes over a thousand adjuster visits per day and the majority of folks read and leave, and repeat the process the next day in hopes of some new information being posted. When something controversial is on the table then a few adjusters such as Mr. Wong Whey get a little deeper involved. My purpose of posting to this board is to harvest some tidbits of the combined knowledge of this learned forum including yourself. The adjusters that already know everything do not share my needs to learn from my peers. None of us will be awarded a CPCU or an AIC designation by participating or contributing in this Internet Coffee Table Talk but in my younger days as a whippersnapper adjuster I found if I did not participate in discussions such as presented by adjusters from the trenches I did not advance my base of knowledge. I can be wrong and appear stupid on some aspect of some coverages but I will hang in there until one of these CADO respected experts puts me back on track. Accordingly……..
I am assuming a standard commercial property extra expense coverage form from ISO listed as CP 00 30 10 91.
Civil Authority. We will pay for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain and necessary EXTRA EXPENSE caused by the action of civil authority that prohibits access to the described premises due to direct physical loss of or damage to property, other than at the described premises, caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss. This coverage will apply for a period of up to two consecutive weeks from the date of that action
********************************
Your post
Bill, even with official shut down, you still need a covered cause of loss which results in direct physical loss of or damage to property, other than at the described premises due to direct physical loss of or damage to property, other than at the described premisis, caused by or resulting from any Covered cause of loss.
********************************
MY POSTING
Dave I took the liberty of removing your added in period after premises and inserted 26 additional words of the policy language that elucidates why I consider the people at airports with this coverage being entitled to compensation. In my opinion the WTC loss is a perfect example of why the language was included in the policy.
If you are referring to the shut down of airports by the FAA then you have some real issues for discussion.
I am referring to a claim for prohibited access by Civil Authority. You are referring to a claim for direct physical damage to covered property. I am sure a better way if for Mr. Whey to weigh in on these issues with his better explanations and diagnosis of the policy framer's intent.
I will pursue the BI/EE claim of any airport concession store that was closed down anywhere in the USA on a contingency fee basis (where law allows) during the FAA shutdown.
**********************
YOUR POST
1. What was reason for shutdown: Prevention of additional flights being hijacked? 2. Because of physical damage from terrorists actions? 3. Becuase of direct physical damage to other property ?
New York and area around Pentagon could be expected to be shut down because of the physical damage. Stores and business in airports, well I don't see the relationship to direct physical damage. But, as I am not in an executive position with an Insurance Company and not privy at this time as to what they are considering, I don't have a direct answer for you
**********
ME AGAIN
I have handled several of these type losses in New York City, and looking for more, the position of Insurance Companies with insureds near the zone is “We are paying.”
William S Cook
Public Adjuster
(Message edited by wscook on March 17, 2002)
(Message edited by wscook on March 17, 2002) |
David P Bennett
Registered User
Username: Whitey
Post Number: 31
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 8:20 am: | |
Bill, even with official shut down, you still need a covered cause of loss which results in direct physical loss of or damage to property, other than at the described premises. If you are referring to the shut down of airports by the FAA then you have some real issues for discussion.
1. What was reason for shutdown: Prevention of additional flights being hijacked? 2. Because of physical damage from terrorists actions? 3. Becuase of direct physical damage to other property ?
New York and area around Pentagon could be expected to be shut down because of the physical damage. Stores and business in airports, well I don't see the relationship to direct physical damage. But, as I am not in an executive position with an Insurance Company and not privy at this time as to what they are considering, I don't have a direct answer for you. |
William S. Cook
Registered User
Username: Wscook
Post Number: 35
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 10:07 am: | |
Wong
I agree with your comments, I was in hopes that some one may have a concept that would provide assistance to this person's distress. If his airport store was in operation at time of official shutdown he could possibly be entitled to some BI coverage for that store.
William S Cook
Public Adjuster |
D Wong Whey
Registered User
Username: Dwongwhey
Post Number: 86
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 3:44 pm: | |
Bill what was or would be the 'covered property' which sustained the vandalism damage?
Without direct damage to covered property how could you have a BI claim (other than by way of 'civil authority')?
To answer your question, IMHO, the answer is NO.
(Message edited by dwongwhey on March 14, 2002) |
William S. Cook
Registered User
Username: Wscook
Post Number: 34
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 2:43 pm: | |
Please see my posting on CADO section called "rumor mill" for business ruined by email rumors. Could this be considered a vandalism loss for purposes of a BI claim.
William S Cook
Public Adjuster |
|
