The insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that the insured's alleged hurricane damage was due to pre-existing loss was rejected by the court. Exhibit Network Int'l v. Union Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114267 (S.D. Texas May 25, 2021).      The insured alleged that wind and rain from Hurricane Harvey damaged its property's roof, flashings, and interior. Prior to the hurricane, the insured had the roof inspected by Pyramid Water Proofing, Inc. Minimal leaks were found but the roof membrane appeared to be in fair condition given the age of the roof. Replacement was advised, but it was not immediately required. The insured did not replace the roof.      After Hurricane Harvey struck, the insured found water damage in the building in an area with a pre-Harvey roof leak, a new leak in the shop area and wet ceiling tiles, and a wet floor upstairs. No claim was filed because the damage did not seem serious. A year later heavy rain caused leaking in the same areas. The insured hired a public adjuster who determined the damage was caused by winds from Hurricane Harvey. The claim was reported to Union Insurance 15 months after Hurricane Harvey.      Union's adjuster observed signs of normal deterioration and wear and tear, but no signs of storm damage. The claim was denied. Suit was filed and Union moved for summary judgment.      Union first argued that the claim was not promptly provided as required by the policy. The insured contended it was not aware of the roof damage resulting from Harvey until a year after the hurricane when heavy rains caused substantial leaks. The public adjuster had found that the damage to the roof was caused by Hurricane Harvey. The court could not find as a matter of law that a reasonable jury could not return a finding that the insured's notice was within a reasonable time after the occurrence.     Moreover, Union had to show prejudice from the late notice in order to avoid liability under the policy. Union complained that it could not insect the property at the time of the alleged damages and was denied access to critical evidence such as the condition of the roof after the hurricane. But Union did not identify any intervening events that likely changed the condition of the roof. The conflicting reports from Union's adjuster and the insured's public adjuster created a fact issue as to whether the delay between Hurricane Harvey and the insured's notice of the damage prejudiced Union's ability to investigate the cause of the damage. Therefore, Union's summary judgment motion was denied. 

from Insurance Law Hawaii https://ift.tt/3iq8kY4