BROADCASTS.com

b'

Determine Whether Property Damage Occurred\\n\\nA first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a \\nperson, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of \\nloss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity \\nunder a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove \\nthat there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured \\nby the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured by the policy is \\noften relatively easy to fulfill.\\n\\nFor example, in the case of a fire the charred building need only be \\nshown to the insurer. Other situations may not be as easy to prove. Is a\\n building overhanging a newly created cliff damaged? Has a church that \\nis permeated with a gasoline odor sustained property damage? Was missing\\n property stolen? Has a building showing signs it may collapse, subject \\nto an insured peril called \\u201ccollapse?\\u201d\\n\\nOften, an insurer needs the wisdom of Solomon to reach a correct and \\nfair result. The first party property adjuster is charged with the duty \\nof helping the insured establish the existence or nonexistence of \\nproperty damage due to a risk of loss insured against and not excluded \\nand work to keep all of the promises made by the insurance policy.\\n\\nWhen a first party property policy insures against the risk of physical \\nloss to certain real or personal property, whether the policy is a named\\n peril, all risk, special risk, or direct risk of physical loss policy, \\nthe insured must first prove there is damage to the property. An insured\\n may also make claim for loss of use of the property that is the subject\\n of the insurance.\\n\\nThe Insured can retain the property and sustain a constructive loss of \\nuse by denial of access or danger of imminent destruction. In Hughes v. \\nPotomac Insurance Co., 199 Cal. App. 2d 239 (1962), the court found \\ncoverage after the land next to the house slid away causing the \\nundamaged house to overhang a cliff. The California Court of Appeal \\nfound that damage to a structure existed if it was not a safe place for \\npeople to live even though all the walls stood and the roof kept out the\\n rain.\\n\\nWhile a loss of use may, in some cases, entail a physical loss, \\u201closs of\\n use\\u201d and \\u201cphysical loss or damage\\u201d are not synonymous. Indeed, \\ninterpretation of physical loss as requiring only loss of use stretches \\n\\u201cphysical\\u201d beyond its ordinary meaning and may, in some cases \\u201crender \\nthe word \\u2018physical\\u2019 meaningless.\\u201d In Source Food Tech., Inc. v. U.S. \\nFidelity and Guar. Co., 465 F.3d 834, 835 (8th Cir.2006) the court found\\n no coverage under a policy covering \\u201cdirect physical loss to property\\u201d \\nwhen property was meat which was not allowed to cross the border into \\nthe United States and was thus treated as unusable but in fact suffered \\nno spoilage or contamination.\\n