Search
Close this search box.

Insurance Relief for Riot-Impacted Businesses

protesters-holding-signs-4552841

Insurance Relief for Riot-Impacted Businesses

Well-reported incidents of rioting nationwide have resulted in extensive damage to business premises, inventory and other property. In addition, government-instituted curfews or shutdown orders have interrupted businesses, causing commercial enterprises to lose income.

Many managers assume their insurance policies exclude riot-caused damage. Typically, this is not the case. Insurance coverage for property damage and lost income due to riots or civil commotion should be available under most commercial property insurance and business owner insurance policies. Absent special exclusions, these forms of property insurance provide coverage for a variety of losses, including destruction to store fronts and interiors, broken windows, stolen property, graffiti damage and, in most cases, the cost of debris removal.

In addition to property damage coverage, businesses forced to close as a result of riot damage may have coverage for business interruption. Lost income because of the closure of a property that accepts products or services of the policyholder, or that attracts customers to the policyholder’s business, may also be covered under dependent properties or contingent business extensions of coverage. Likewise, lost income as a result of curfews should be available under the civil authority extension of coverage. While insurance companies so far have resisted paying for losses resulting from the coronavirus, business interruption caused by physical damage to property during riots is in a more conventional, and thus clearer, category of coverage.

Typical commercial policies contain coverage limitations, however. Many require a “waiting period” of 72 hours before a policyholder can begin claiming the benefits of coverage. The first three days of business shutdown, constraint of access by barricade, or limited operation because of other civil authority, such as curfews that shorten business use or hours, usually are excluded from coverage. Policies also might limit interruption coverage to short durations of, for example, three consecutive weeks of loss.

Insurers might assert several exclusions. They would, of course, impose any policy limitations on riot or civil commotion. Additionally, some might try to assert a terrorism exclusion. Moreover, for damaged buildings empty for more than 60 days, insurers might raise vacancy exclusions — most notably, an exclusion for vandalism. Finally, insurers might assert overlapping virus exclusions as a bar to full loss-of-use restrictions from rioting.

Policyholders considering coverage should take the following steps:

  1. Review the policy. Analyze coverage and applicable exclusions. An experienced coverage lawyer can help harmonize competing claims and exclusion, especially the complicated area of business interruption losses.
     
  2. Track all damage, expenses and lost income. Insurers will require detailed proof of loss early in a business interruption or property damage claim. Policyholders should consider setting up a separate accounting code to document insured losses.
     
  3. Mitigate damage. Policyholders should take reasonable steps to reduce damages — including installing new doors and windows (or boarding up windows). Damages enhanced by inattention at the site can be limited.

8 things to know in the wake of civil disorders

Following days of riots and protests in cities and towns across the country in the wake of George Floyd’s death, there are many questions concerning insurance coverage, how to manage the risks and what other factors business and property owners should address in the aftermath.

According to the Insurance Information Institute website, there is a cost to these events. Before the riots in Minneapolis and other areas (for which numbers are not yet available), the most expensive civil disorder events occurred from April 29 through May 4, 1992, in Los Angeles, following the acquittal of the police officers involved with the arrest and beating of Rodney King. Property Claims Services (PCS), a unit of Verisk Analytics, found that the riots and looting caused $775 million in insured losses.

More recently, there were $24 million in insured losses following the civil unrest that occurred in Baltimore, Maryland, in 2015 following the death of Freddie Gray, who died while in police custody after he suffered a spinal cord injury.

The slide show above highlights eight factors to consider or actions to take in the wake of civil disorders.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts

Insurance-technology

Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More
Business

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote