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 Court’s Decision
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.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
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.
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 Court’s Decision
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.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
