SUBROGATION CASES OF INTEREST

Transcription

1 SUBROGATION CASES OF INTEREST CLAIMS COMMITTEE Subrogation Water Loss - This loss involved a leak in an AC fitting in the attic during construction of this new home. The leak was not discovered for several months. Recovery was challenging, as the fitting was not retained. The general contractor, sub contractor and a/c company all paid a portion of this loss. We were able to recover 55% of our GCA or $31,000 total from all parties. Fire Loss - Loss involved extensive fire damage to the dwelling of an owner occupied risk. Fire originated in a scooter parked on a slab next to the home. Our expert engineers were able to rule out defects and found the scooter service repair company to be negligent, although the evidence was circumstantial. Mediation took place ending in an agreement to settle for $125,000 or 25% of our GCA. Fire Loss - Loss involved moderate fire damage to this owner occupied risk originating in the attic at the air handler. The air handler was 7 years old. Our expert engineer found this to be a product defect. We settled at $15,000 or 100% of GCA. Vehicle Loss - Loss involved vehicle damage to an owner occupied dwelling. The driver lost control and struck our insured s vehicle pushing it through the front of the home. The driver had liability limits of $10,000 and there were two other vehicles involved. We received our pro rata share of $5, or 39% of our GCA in exchange for a release, as the responsible party was not otherwise collectible. Water Loss - Loss involved a washer that was stuck on the fill cycle causing water damage to the home. Our expert technician could not replicate the failure to definitively prove fault, however, we were able to settle with the manufacturer for $7, or 53% of Vehicle Loss - This claim involved a vehicle that collided with and damaged the fence located at the front entrance of the insured location. The carrier paid a prorated amount due to limits of liability. We received our pro rata share of $ or 86% of Water Loss - This claim involved a plumbing installation error by the plumbing company who installed a water softener for our insured. The plumbing company was in the process of filing bankruptcy. In order to bypass the bankruptcy, we settled for $7, or 53% of Water Loss - This claim involved water damage to the insured occupied dwelling due to a plumbing leak. Inspection found that the company that completed recent repairs caused the leak. We were able to settle this loss for $5, or 100% of Fire/Explosion: This claim involved damage to an apartment due to gunfire and explosion. This apartment had duplicate coverage from another carrier. We recovered $2, or 41% of Vehicle Loss: This claim involved a vehicle that drove through our insured s front yard damaging a palm tree and landscaping. We settled for $2, or 100% of Fire Loss: This loss involved a fire that occurred to a condominium unit. Our insured is the condominium association. The responsible party used a heating pad nightly and it was hung 1 of 7

2 over her cloth headboard and it appeared the cord might have been pinched behind the headboard. There was arcing in the cord which caused the fire, but there was questionable evidence of negligence. We agreed to settle for $8,500 or 23% of Water Loss: This loss involved water damage to an insured occupied residence. A six-year-old defective water filter in the refrigerator caused this loss. Due to some comparative negligence, we settled with the manufacturer for $21,000 or 38% of Water Loss: This loss involved water damage to an owner occupied dwelling. The plumbing company forgot to glue some PVC fittings when installing new water lines in the ceiling. When the water was turned on, numerous water leaks ensued. We recovered $16, or 87.8% of Vehicle Loss: This loss invovled a vehicle hitting our insured s business. The driver had a $50,000 liability limit under his vehicle policy and a $1,000,000 umbrella policy. The vehicle policy surrendered the remainder of its limits of $39,000 and the umbrella policy agreed to the remainder of $12, Total recovery was $51, or 82% of Fire Loss: This loss involved a rural fire that damaged appurtenant structures and personal property located on the residence premises. The fire resulted from a neighbor leaving unattended burning trash in a barrel. The burning trash caught the grass on fire, which spread to our insured's property. We recovered $18, or 100% of Water Loss: This loss involved water damage to an owner occupied dwelling. A plumber installed a tub and the coupler failed very shortly afterwards. Because of contributory negligence by our policyholder, we agreed on 75% negligence on the part of the plumber and recovered $15, or 64% of Vehicle Loss: This loss involved vehicle damage to a condominium light pole. Because the police report indicated another driver changed lanes in front of the vehicle, which then took evasive action and lost control, we agreed to settle for $2,700 or 50% of Fire Loss: This loss involved fire damage to a tenant occupied condominium from a cooking fire caused by the tenant. We recovered $24, or 97% of Water Loss: This loss involved water damage to an owner occupied condominium from the kitchen faucet having been left on in a unit above. The unit owner above accidentally went to sleep with the faucet left running, and it overflowed. We recovered $19, or 98% of the GCA. Fire Loss: This loss involved smoke and soot damage to an owner occupied dwelling. The damage is the result of an electrical fire at the neighbor's house. The homes are very close to each other. The negligence of the neighbor was not clear, as the origin and cause was undetermined. However, we agreed to an $18,000 settlement or 86% of Water Loss: This loss involved water damage to an owner occupied condominium, resulting from the failure of a water filtration system in a unit above. The filtration system was already in the unit when it was purchased, so its maintenance history and age were not known. We recovered $10, or 48% of 2 of 7

3 Fire Loss: This loss involved fire damage to an owner occupied dwelling, from a malfunction of a six-year- old range. Our policyholder had placed an electric pressure cooker on the range top, which was turned on and subsequently caught the cooker on fire. The range was subject to a recall; the year before the range had spontaneously turned on also and the manufacturer warranted the repairs. We recovered $58, or 90% of Water Loss: This loss involved water damage that resulted because of the mislabeling of the breakers in the electrical breaker box. Our policyholder had previously hired an electrician to replace his breaker box. Later, before leaving on vacation, our policyholder turned off the breaker to the washing machine. However, the breaker actually serviced the refrigerator. The freezer subsequently thawed, causing the water damage. We recovered $2, or 100% of Vehicle Damage: This loss involved an automobile accident in which a vehicle failed to stop at a stop sign and hit our insured s fence at a high rate of speed. The vehicle traveled through the fence, hit both of the insured s cars and ended up near the garage. The block and concrete debris from the impact struck the garage door, damaging two of the lower panels. The vehicle was insured, liability was accepted however, they only had a $15,000 policy limit and there were three claimants. We recovered our pro rata share of $3, or 49.63% of Vehicle Damage: This loss involved vehicle damage caused by a unit owner who lost control of his vehicle and crashed it into the property causing damage to the column and fence. The vehicle was insured and liability was accepted. We recovered $4, or 85.40% of Vehicle Damage: This loss involved vehcle damage that occurred when a dump truck struck our insured's property causing damage. The insured had a contractor at her home bringing dirt to level her driveway. The contractor was driving the dump truck when he hit the gas instead of the brake. We negotiated settlement with the opposing insurance carrier recovered $35, or 86% of GCA. Vehicle Damage: Loss involved vehicle damage caused by a driver losing control of their vehicle and crashing it into our insured's property causing damage. We recovered $2, or 100% of Fire Damage: This loss involved fire damage to a condominium that started as a result of a candle placed too close to a towel in the half bath on the first floor. There was structural damage to the bathroom, laundry room, hall, kitchen and living room. Due to the condominium bylaws, we were only able to subrogate for the damages to the common elements of the property. We recovered $18, or 23.98% of Vehicle Damage: This loss involved vehicle damage that resulted from a driver losing control and crashing into the insured property damaging the front wall of the risk. We recovered $18, or 55.24% of the GCA due to limitation in available insurance coverage. Vehicle Damage: Loss involved vehicle damage resulting from a driver losing control of their vehicle and crashing it into our insured's property causing exterior and interior damage. The vehicle was insured, liability was accepted however, they only had a $10,000 policy limit. Recovery was in the amount of $10,000 or 22.49% of Water Damage: This loss involved water damage resulting from a failed supply line fitting from the new refrigerator that the insured had purchased from a large retailer. The retailer s installer 3 of 7

4 completed a faulty installation of the supply line fitting. Our recovery was in the amount of $12, or 86.33% of Vehicle Damage: This loss involved vehicle damage resulting from the insured hiring a landscaping company to drop some dirt at his property for the retaining wall he was having built. The landscaping company damaged the driveway by dragging the vehicle tailgate across the driveway pavers gouging them. There was also buckling noted from the weight of the dump truck driving across the drive. We recovered $3, or 26.82% of Vehicle Damage: This loss involved a drunk driver who drove through a stop sign located in front of the insured property and crashed into the front elevation. There was damage to the landscape, exterior block wall, and interior. The vehicle was insured, liability was accepted; however, they had a $10,000 policy limit. We recovered $10,000 or 60.95% of Fire Damage: This loss involved fire damage from an electrical fire. Based on our electrical engineer's investigation, the metal roofing material and wire lathe became a path for electrical current trying to return to the transformer located on the NW corner of our insured's unit. There was a problem with the electric company s underground neutral conductor between these points and the current tried to find another path back to the transformer; it used the metal lathe under the stucco and metal flashing and roofing material. The problem was misdiagnosed by the electrician and by the electric company. We recovered $25, or 79.42% of Water Damage: This loss involved water damage resulting from a plumbing leak located in the unit above our insured's causing damage to kitchen, living room and bedroom. We recovered $ or 23.46% of Water Damage: This loss involved water damage from an a/c leak in the condominium unit above the insured risk. We recovered $6,700 or 48% of Water Damage: This loss involved water damage from a washer line that burst in the third floor apartment and leaked down to the first floor in the kitchen, living room and bedrooms. The responsible party was insured and accepted liability. We recovered $2,861.76, 87 or 50% of the GCA. Vehicle Damage: This loss involved vehicle damage to a water main of a building. The driver crashed into a light pole, which caused damage to the sidewalk water main that leads into building. The driver was insured; they accepted liability and we recovered $6, or 100% of Water Damage: This loss involved water damage to a rental dwelling caused by someone in the unit above leaving the water running in the sink or bathtub, which overflowed into our insured s condominium. The responsible party s carrier accepted liability and we recovered $10, or 100% of Tree Damage: This loss involved damage from a neighbor s tree to the insured s residence. The responsible party s carrier did not accept liability, however, we agreed to a compromised settlement of $9, or 25% of Water Damage: This loss involved water damage to the insured s dwelling caused by a water leak from the unit above. The responsible party was insured and their carrier accepted liability. We recovered $4, or 100% of 4 of 7

5 Water Damage: This loss involved water damage to an owner occupied dwelling. The resident of the unit above left the water on in their kitchen sink, causing the sink to overflow allowing water to travel through the wall cavities and causing damage to the insured risk. The responsible party s carrier accepted liability and we recovered $4, or 100% of Vehicle Damage: This loss involved vehicle damage to an owner occupied dwelling. The responsible party lost control of his vehicle and crashed into our insured s home. The responsible party s carrier accepted liability and we recovered the $10, policy limit or 88% of Water Damage: This loss involved water damage to the insured dwelling, resulting from a leak in the unit above. The responsible party s carrier accepted liability. We recovered $11, or 62% of Water Damage: This loss involved water damage to an owner occupied dwelling. The cause of loss was a water leak in the unit above. The responsible party s carrier accepted liability. We recovered $2, or 100% of Water Damage: This loss involved water damage to the insured risk resulting from a leaking toilet supply line five floors above the insured s condominium. Liability was accepted by the carrier of the unit where the leak originated. We recovered $5, or 92% of Water Damage: This loss involved damage to the insured risk resulting from the failure of the water heater in the unoccupied / vacant unit above the insured s unit. Liability was accepted by the above unit owner s carrier. We recovered $6, or 98.5% of Water Damage: This loss involved water damage to the insured risk resulting from the improper installation of a new water heater. The plumbing company installed a new water heater for the insured; existing copper supply lines were replaced with PVC lines. The PVC fitting on top of the new water heater came apart and discharged water. Liability was accepted by the plumber s carrier. We recovered a total of $29,090.14, or 87% of Loss of Rent: This loss involved two separate loss of rent claims due to the building s electrical system having to be brought to code following a fire in the mechanical room. Because the condominium association had not properly maintained the building s electrical system, there was an unnecessary delay in the repair process that resulted in the insureds loosing rent on their units. We recovered a total of $1,100.00, or 52% of the GCA on each claim. Water Damage: This loss involved water damage to the insured risk due to the failure of a toilet supply line in the unit above the insured s condominium; neither unit was a primary residence or occupied at the time of the incident. We recovered $ or 25% of Water Damage: This loss involved water damage to the risk resulting from water discharged from the a/c system in the unit above. Liability was accepted by the carrier for the unit owner above. We recovered $3, or 100% of the damages. Water Damage: This loss involved damage to the insured risk and personal property when a maintenance worker turned on the outside water valve to the risk as well as that of a neighbor s unit. The insured had shut off the water to her unit due to plumbing work that was going to be 5 of 7

6 done in the master bath located on the second floor of her unit. The carrier accepted liabilit and we recovered $25, or 82.5% of the damages. Vehicle Damage: This loss involved damage to the insured risk and personal property resulting from a vehicle running into the front elevation of the risk. Liability was accepted by the driver s carrier. We recovered $50,000 or 86.77% of Water Damage: This loss involved water damage to the insured risk resulting from an improper repair to the insured s washing machine by the repair company. The repair company used the wrong part when they made the repair and reportedly acknowledged the error. The repair company accepted liability. We recovered $1, or 98.9% of Vehicle Damage: This loss involved damage to the insured risk resulting from a driver losing control of their vehicle and hitting the building. Liability was accepted by the driver s carrier. We recovered $7, or 100% of Water Loss: This loss involved water damage resulting from improper plumbing repairs in the unit above. The above unit owner attempted to do his own plumbing repairs and negligently caused water damage to the insured s unit. We recovered $8, or 91% of Water Loss: This loss involved water damage to the insured risk due to faulty repairs by a plumber. We recovered $8, or 100% of Water Loss: This loss involved water damage caused by improper maintenance of a washing machine owned by an apartment complex. The apartment complex s insurance carrier accepted liability; we recovered $ or 100% of Water Loss: This loss involved water damage, which resulted from lack of proper maintenance in the unit above. The unit owners above had not maintained or visited the unit in years: water leaked from the bath p-trap and the toilet. The responsible party s carrier denied liability. Arbitration was filed and we prevailed with a recovery of $8, or 100% of Legal Expense and Sanction Recoveries: Judgment: Citizens was awarded $ in taxable costs sanctions. We recovered the full amount of $ Judgment: Citizens was awarded $500 in taxable costs sanctions. We recovered the full amount of $ Judgment: Citizens was awarded $ in taxable costs sanctions. We recovered the full amount. Judgment: Citizens was awarded $ for sanctions for contempt of court. We recovered the full amount. Judgment: Citizens was awarded $ for sanctions. We recovered the full amount. Judgment: Citizens was awarded $3, for fees and costs sanctions. We recovered the full amount. 6 of 7

7 Judgment: Citizens was awarded $1, for fees and costs sanctions. We recovered the full amount. 7 of 7