Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm News
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: April 30, 2015
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comIn Torre v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, the appeals court held that New Jersey homeowners were not entitled to reimbursement for the costs associated with removing non-owned debris that accumulated in their yard during Hurricane Sandy.
Michael and Geraldine Torre (collectively, the Torres) held a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (“SFIP”) issued by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Liberty) under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. After sustaining significant damage from Hurricane Sandy, the Torres submitted claims under the SFIP.
The Hurricane Sandy insurance dispute concerns whether the policy covers the cost of removing storm-generated debris not owned by the Torres from portions of their land. Liberty paid the Torres a total of $235,751.68, which included the cost of removing debris from their house. However, the insurance company denied a second claim related to the cost of removing sand and other debris deposited on the property around their house. According to the Liberty, such damage was not covered under the insurance policy.
The SFIP’s debris-removal provision states that “[w]e will pay the expense to remove non-owned debris that is on or in insured property and debris of insured property anywhere.” The parties disagree on the meaning of the term “insured property.” The Torres argued that “insured property” means not only the specific structures and items of property that are insured by the SFIP (such as their house) but their entire parcel of land. Meanwhile, Liberty maintained that “insured property” means only the property insured under the SFIP, and that the SFIP does not cover land.
The Third Circuit upheld the district court’s decision
In reaching its decision, the Third Circuit panel focused on the language of the SFIP. As explained by the court:
In sum, the SFIP provides coverage for certain structures and other items of property but not for an entire parcel of land. The entire parcel of land thus cannot constitute “insured property” because it is not insured by the SFIP at all. And because the entire parcel of land does not constitute “insured property,” the provision of the SFIP requiring Liberty to pay for the removal of non-owned debris that is “on or in insured property” does not apply to the expenses the Torres incurred in removing non-owned debris from their land outside their home.
The court rejected all of the Torres’ arguments to the contrary. It disagreed that the term “property” should be given its ordinary meaning, which they argued includes land. The Third Circuit also rejected the argument that term “insured property” refers to the Torres’ land because that is the property listed on the Declarations Page and thus is the “property” that is insured.
From a policyholder’s perspective, the Third Circuit’s decision appears to be hyper-technical and clearly in error. It is only the first circuit to interpret the term “insured property” this way.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
FeedSpot Recognizes Donald Scarinci’s Government & Law Blog One of the Top 20 Public Law Blogs Little Falls, NJ – May 22, 2025 – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is honored to share that Managing Partner Donald Scarinci’s Government & Law blog has been listed by FeedSpot.com as one of the “20 Best Public Law Blogs and […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
SH Partner and 100th Bomb Group Foundation Legal Counsel Discussed The Nuremberg Trials and the Law May 21, 2025 – Little Falls, NJ – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is proud to share that partner Ronald S. “Ron” Bienstock recently spoke at the 100th Bomb Group Biennial Reunion, held May 15-18, 2025, in New Orleans. The […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
Little Falls, NJ – May 1, 2025 – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is proud to share that Managing Partner Donald Scarinci’s Constitutional Law Reporter blog has been listed by FeedSpot.com as one of the “Top 100 Legal Blogs.” No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Feedspot, a content reader that curates websites of […]
Author: Donald Scarinci
Little Falls, NJ – May 1, 2025 – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is proud to share that Managing Partner Donald Scarinci’s Government & Law blog has been listed by FeedSpot.com as one of the “80 Best New Jersey Blogs and Websites in 2025.” *No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New […]
Author: Donald Scarinci
Scarinci Hollenbeck Partner Nathanya G. Simon named by ROI-NJ to the “ROI Influencers: Women in Business” list for fourth consecutive year Scarinci Hollenbeck Partner Nathanya G. Simon has been named by ROI-NJ to the “ROI Influencers: Women in Business” list for 2025. After four decades of practice, Nathanya’s pioneering influence in the field of special […]
Author: Nathanya G. Simon
Congratulations Angela Turiano on appointment as Director of Legislative Affairs for SHRM Princeton April 17, 2025 – Little Falls, NJ – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC congratulates Partner Angela Turiano on her appointment as Director of Legislative Affairs for SHRM Princeton. Along with serving as a member of SHRM Princeton’s leadership team, Angela will monitor pending legislative, regulatory, […]
Author: Angela A. Turiano
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!