Caban v. OPM - After heir of a deceased government worker applied made claim for Met Life life insurance benefits, the claim was denied on the basis that the government never received the change of beneficiary form. A lawsuit for the insurance benefits based upon the change of beneficiary and a technicality in the government insurance regulations. The listed settled the matter with the client agreeing to a 50/50 split of the insurance proceeds prior to motion practice.

Aha v. NYMAGIC - Insurer owned a mixed use property with a restaurant rented to a tenant. A fire occurred in the kitchen of the restaurant, allegedly caused by ducts that were not properly cleaned and aggravated by the claim that the restaurant's fire suppression system was not operable. The insurance carrier denied completely the claim stating that the insured failed to comply with the Protective Safeguard provision of the policy. Litigation was commenced in state court and after discovery was completed, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the basis that the protective safeguard provision was ambiguous as written and there was no way to determine with any certainty what was required of the insured. The insurance carrier cross-moved for summary judgment on the basis that the fire suppression system did not work. Plaintiff also argued in his opposition that the system was not within his control nor did he have knowledge of any impairment of the system. Both motions were denied and the Court ordered the matter to go to trial. Following the Court's decision, the insurance made an offer to settle. Case settled prior to trial for $140,000.00.

Luna v. Liberty Mutual - After insurance company denied portions of a major fire claim and failed to pay the full replacement value of the loss. Litigation in Federal Court for the Eastern District of New York was commenced for breach of the insurance policy. During the discovery phase, the insurance company settled the claim, reimbursing Plaintiff for the full value of the construction costs and additional expenses. Settled for $30,000.00.

Kobbel v. Underwriters Insurance – Insured purchased a foreclosure property occupied by a hostile tenant. After legal action by the insured an eviction was scheduled, however, the day prior to the eviction there was a fire at the building. Insurance company denied the claim based upon the insured’s alleged failure to comply with the protective safeguard provision of the policy requiring operable smoke detectors. Litigation was commenced with the insured relying upon the failure of the insurance company to establish he had either “knowledge of any impairment of a protective safeguard” or that he had “control” over the protective safeguard. Case settled prior to trial for $195,000.00

Corn v. Queens Contractors - Following a catastrophic fire caused by the negligence of a cooperative’s contractor, a claim was successfully pursued against the contractor to recover damages for contents not recoverable by the claimant’s insurance policy due to minimal policy limits. Settled prior to litigation for non-disclosed amount.

Zigel v. US Underwriters Insurance - Insurance Company denied a claim arising from burglars entering a commercial property, breaking the walls and stealing copper piping from the walls. The burglars caused significant damage as a result of the breaking of the walls. Insurance company’s denial alleged that the destruction of the walls was the result of theft as such was not covered under the policy. Litigation was commenced. Plaintiff won summary judgment by establishing that the destruction of the walls was a separate and distinct act from the theft of the pipes and as a matter of law did not “result” from the theft. Settled for $85,000.00

Lei v. On-Time Subsurface - During the course of the construction of a small commercial office building, subcontractor failed to properly shore vertical supports during excavation. As a result, the vertical supports shifted causing the building to partially collapse. Litigation for negligence was commenced against the contractor and subcontractor for lost rents, fines, and consequential damages. Settled following mediation for $305,000.00.

Hoffer v. Travelers Insurance Group - Insurance company denied an insurance claim for catastrophic fire damage to a rental property. Insurance company alleged that the owner of the building caused the fire, relying upon expert reports indicating the presence of gasoline poured in two locations throughout the building. A lawsuit was commenced against Travelers in Federal Court. Discovery was completed and the allegations of arson were successfully defended. Travelers declined to pursue charges or a claim against the owner and Plaintiff’s claim was paid. Settled for $240,000.00.

Stephen v. McCartney & Rason Insurance Brokers – Prior to a major fire in a rental condominium, the owner had inquired about full lost rents coverage. Insurance company gave erroneously advised that such coverage was not available for the property. After the fire, a lawsuit was filed against the insurance broker for the lost rents not covered by the owner’s insurance policy. Case settled in early litigation for $45,000.00.

Eshaghen v. Chubb - During the adjustment of a water damage claim with a public adjuster, insurance company insisted on applying a 5% deductible based upon the property being allegedly “substantially empty of furniture and contents,” amounting to $46,000.00 Additionally, insurance company undervalued several Persian rugs which were damaged. After the claim was referred to Greenblatt & Agulnick and a pre-litigation memorandum of law was served upon Chubb, establishing conclusively that the deductive could not survive litigation, the deductible was waived as inapplicable and the insurance company paid an additional $15,000.00 for the damaged rugs. Settled for additional payments to the insured totaling $61,000.00.