Terrorism and War Exclusions – A Legal Analysis – Claims Magazine
TERRORISM AND WAR EXCLUSIONS – A LEGAL ANALYSIS – Claims Magazine INTRODUCTION In light of the catastrophic nature of the losses of September 11, 2001, many have asked us whether
TERRORISM AND WAR EXCLUSIONS – A LEGAL ANALYSIS – Claims Magazine INTRODUCTION In light of the catastrophic nature of the losses of September 11, 2001, many have asked us whether
Chimney Damage-Faulty Maintenance or Covered Fire Loss? – Claims Magazine ISSUE The insured homeowner recently had his chimney inspected and was told there were cracks in the flue tiles and
Homeowners Coverage Where Insured Does Not Reside At The Described Premises At The Time Of Loss – Claims Magazine Facts Mr. Widower suffered fire loss to his fully insured single
The Homeowners' Property Bounced Out of Their Truck! Does the Vehicles Peril Apply? – Claims Magazine ISSUE The insured homeowners bought a new table and four chairs from a nearby
Coverage for Partial Business Interruption – Claims Magazine COVERAGE FOR PARTIAL BUSINESS INTERRUPTION ISSUE Is there a "suspension of 'operations'" as required by a business interruption policy when there is
Smoke & Soot Residue From Candle Burning: Is This Type of Loss Excluded Under the Standard Homeowners Policy? – Claims Magazine ISSUE: Over the course of a couple of weeks,
Self Storage, Mini Warehouse, Public Storage: Does a Homeowners Policy Cover Personal Property Stored in a Rental Warehouse? – Claims Magazine ISSUE The insured suffered loss to personal property that
Is There First-Party Coverage for Cows Lost to Stray Voltage? – Claims Magazine Issue: The insured dairy farmer noticed that his dairy cattle were suffering from a number of health
Leaky Underground Pipes, But No Water Damage: Is Tear-Out Covered? – Claims Magazine ISSUE The insured discovered water flowing from beneath a concrete slab in one of the insured buildings.
Replacement Cost Loss Settlement; To What Extent Is Matching Required? – Claims Magazine Issue: A hail storm dented the insured's aluminum siding in 14 locations on two sides of the
Recent Updates
Does Kaysville, Utah, Residential Building Code Require Ice Barrier Underlayment When Replacing a Roof?
June 26, 2024 By Dan Hartweg QUESTION: For a roofing project in Kaysville, Utah, does the residential building code require ice barrier underlayment? RESPONSE: Yes. The 2021 Utah State Residential Code (USRC) does not require ice barrier underlayment unless there is a history of ice forming along the eaves causing a backup of water, which is left to local jurisdictions to determine and adopt the requirement. 2021 USRC § R905.1.2. Utah did not complete Table R301.2, “Ice Barrier Underlayment Required” column, leaving it to local jurisdictions to complete the table. 2021 USRC Table R301.2. While the Kaysville City Code does not contain any amendments to Table 301.2, according to the Kaysville City Community Development website, ice barrier underlayment is required. FACTS: Roof repairs at a private residence located in Unincorporated, West Jordan, Utah. DISCUSSION: Utah adopted the 2021 International Residential Code (IRC), including Appendices AE and AQ, with amendments, as the uniform statewide residential code known as the 2021 Utah State Residential Code (USRC) and is part of the mandatory statewide building code, the State Construction Code (SCC). Utah Code § 15A-2-101. (Adoption of SCC); Utah Code §§ 15A-2-103(b), (d), and (m) (adoption); Utah Code §§ 15A-3-101 through 206 (IRC amendments); Utah Code §§ 15A-4-201 through 207 (IRC local amendments); 2021 USRC (ICC page). The State and its political subdivisions are required to follow the SCC. Utah Code § 15A-1-204(1)(a). The Division administers the SCC, but it is not within the Division's responsibility to enforce it, the responsibility for inspections and enforcement under the SCC fall on the compliance agency. Utah Code § 15A-1-205 (Division duties); Utah Code § 15A-1-207(1) (compliance agency with jurisdiction over project shall inspect and enforce SCC). A compliance agency is defined as an agency of the State or any of its political subdivisions which issues permits for construction regulated under the SCC. Utah Code § 15A-1-202(6). The compliance agency must follow the Division’s established standardized permit system, may charge a fee but must impose a 1% surcharge to help fund Division education efforts, and must promptly review plans and inspect properties. Utah Code § 15A-1-209 (building permit requirements and surcharge); Utah Code § 10-6-160 (municipality may charge fee and must review plans and inspect properties promptly); U.A.C. R156-15A-220 (standardized permits). A search of the subject property on the PLRB address search page indicates that it is located within the City of Kaysville, Utah. 2021 USRC Reroofing Section R908 of the 2021 USRC on Reroofing requires that recovering or replacing an existing roof must comply with the materials and methods outlined for new roofs: 2021 USRC § R908.1. Therefore, the provisions concerning ice barrier underlayment and drip edges in Chapter 9 must be considered. ICE BARRIER UNDERLAYMENT Ice barrier underlayment is required under Section R905.1.2 where there is a history of ice forming along eaves causing a backup of water as designated in local amendments in Table R301.2: 2021 USRC § R905.1.2. Utah did not complete Table R301.2 as follows, in relevant part: 2021 USRC Table R301.2. Because no amendment to IRC Table R301.2(1) was made by the legislature, the need for ice barrier underlayment is left to local jurisdictions. Utah Code §§ 15A-3-101 through 206; 2021 USRC Table R301.2. Kaysville City adopted the current version of the International Residential Code adopted by the State of Utah. Kaysville City Code § 18-2-2. The City did not adopt any amendments to Table 301.2. Id., see also, Kaysville City Code Title 18, Chapter 3. However, according to the City’s website, ice barrier underlayment is required. Kaysville City, Community Development, Roofing Requirements. DISCUSSION: Utah adopted the 2021 International Residential Code (IRC), as amended, as the 2021 Utah State Residential Code (USRC) and part of the 2021 Utah State Construction Code, a uniform statewide code. The state did not complete Table R301.2, leaving the decision to require ice barrier underlayment up to local jurisdictions where there has been a history of ice forming along eaves causing a backup of water. While the Kaysville City Code does not contain an amendment to Table R301.2, according to the Kaysville City Community Development website, ice barrier underlayment is required.
AZ – STATUTORY BULLETIN – New Arizona Law Modifies Certain Minimum Limits that Apply to Transportation Network Services (e.g., Uber) and Services Involving Taxis, Livery Vehicles, and Limousines
Recently, Arizona's Governor signed into law House Bill 2729, which (1) addresses transportation network companies (TNCs) (e.g., Uber) and their drivers and (2) modifies the minimum required limits for commercial motor vehicle liability insurance and commercial uninsured motorist coverage. See Ariz. Stat. § 28-4038(B). The new law also (1) addresses taxi companies, livery vehicle companies, and limousine companies and the drivers of such vehicles and (2) modifies the minimum required limits for commercial uninsured motorist coverage. See Ariz. Stat. § 28-4039(A)(2). The new law takes effect on September 14, 2024.
Is there a Duty to Defend the Insureds Against the Plaintiff's Complaint that Alleges Damages Due to the Movement of Water, Debris, and Unstable Soils onto the Plaintiff's Property?
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that the Defendants "built a house on the uphill property from Plaintiff" and that, during the policy period of the Defendants' Homeowners Policy, "[the] Plaintiff became aware that water, debris, mud, unstable soils and other materials slipped, slid and/or moved from Defendants' property onto Plaintiff's property." The question is whether the insurer is required to defend the homeowners against this Complaint, which asserts negligence and trespass claims against the homeowners.
Thompson v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2024)
(United States District Court for the District of Maryland, applying MD law) Note that this case was decided by a U.S. District Court, a trial court in the federal court system. Its opinion is not binding precedent, but it may be cited as persuasive authority.
Copyright © Property & Liability Resource Bureau 2024