On October 21, 2013, MLR attorneys F.J. Maloney and Kyle Sturm obtained partial summary judgment in an insurance coverage lawsuit involving property damages following a fire in the plaintiff’s mobile home. Plaintiff argued that she was entitled to replace her mobile home with a stick-built home, and that she was entitled to replacement cost benefits even though she never repaired or replaced the mobile home. Judge Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon rejected plaintiff’s arguments, holding that the insurance contract did not require the insurance company to pay replacement cost benefits if plaintiff replaced her mobile home with a stick-built home because they are not of like kind and quality. In addition, because plaintiff never actually repaired or replaced her mobile home, MLR’s client was not required to tender replacement cost benefits under the terms of the insurance contract even though the insured and insurer did not agree on a final replacement cost sum. The Court concluded by holding that Great American Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Jackson Cty. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 2713894 (D. Or. Sep. 17, 2007) was not supported by Oregon law to the extent it permits an insured to recover replacement cost insurance benefits under similar circumstances.
- Post author:Scott MacLaren
- Post published:November 12, 2013
- Post category:Fire Loss / Homeowner's and Property Insurance / Replacement Cost
- Post comments:0 Comments