NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

Senior couple looking at hurricane damage

The decision highlights critical underwriting issues that can dramatically affect the amount of risk transferred by the policyholder or assumed by the insurer.

February 24, 2020
Traub Lieberman

In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 2019 WL 6109144 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 18, 2019), New Jersey Transit (“NJT”) defeated the claim of several of its insurers that a $100 million flood sublimit applied to its Superstorm Sandy damages and recovered the full $400 million limits of its property insurance tower. The decision is a big win for the beleaguered transit agency, and for insurance professionals working with complex insurance towers, the decision highlights critical underwriting issues that can dramatically affect the amount of risk transferred by the policyholder or assumed by the insurer.

In NJ Transit, NJT secured a multi-layered property insurance program providing $400 million in all-risk coverage. The first and second layers provided $50 million each, the third and fourth layers provided $175 million and $125 million, respectively, with several insurers issuing quota shares in each layer. The program contained a $100 million flood sublimit, and “flood” was defined to include a “surge” of water. The program did not contain a sublimit for damage caused by a “named windstorm,” which was defined to include “storm surge” associated with a named storm. After NJT made its Superstorm-Sandy claim, some of the third- and fourth-layer insurers advised NJT that the $100 million flood sublimit applied to bar coverage under their policies. NJT sued these excess insurers and won at the trial and appellate levels.

In holding that the $100 million flood sublimit did not apply, the court applied the rule of construction that the specific definition of “named windstorm,” which included the terms “storm surge” and “wind driven water,” controlled over the policies’ more general definition of “flood.” In ascertaining the parties’ intent, the court noted that the omission of the term “storm surge” in the definition of “flood” evidenced an intention that the flood sublimit would not apply to storm surges. Based on this finding, the court rejected several arguments made by the insurers that other policy provisions evidenced the parties’ intent to apply the flood sublimit to all flood-related losses, regardless of whether the loss was caused by a storm surge.



714.701.9180

Arrange No Cost Consultation










Subscribe to Construction Defect Journal

Construction Defect Journal Archives - Recent CD News for Construction Claims Professionals

 

Construction Defect Journal is aggregated from a variety of news sources, article submissions, contributors, and information from industry professionals.

No content on this site should be construed as legal advice or expert opinion. By viewing this site you agree to be bound by its terms and conditions

 

Copyright 2020 - Construction Defect Journal – All Rights Reserved