BROADCASTS.com

b'

Equally Fair Interpretation Favors Insured\\n\\nWCPP Risk Purchasing Group, Inc. ("WCPP") asserted coverage claims under\\n a Commercial General Liability Policy ("Policy") issued by Defendant, \\nLexington Insurance Company, on behalf of Village of Stoney Run, LLC \\n("Village of Stoney Run") seeking defense and indemnity from an insurer \\nwho claimed a mold exclusion defeated coverage.\\n\\nIn WCPP Risk Purchasing Group, Inc. v. Lexington Insurance Company, \\nCivil Action No. CAM-L-1025-22, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law \\nDivision, Camden (November 29, 2023) the Superior Court resolved the \\ncoverage dispute.\\n\\nBACKGROUND\\n\\nThe Underlying Action alleges negligence, breach of the warranty of \\nhabitability, and breach of contract, asserting injury and damage claims\\n against Village of Stoney Run due to toxic fungus/mold infestation in \\nPratt\'s apartment. It is asserted that the mold caused the death of \\nPratt and damaged her personal property.\\n\\nPlaintiff purchased the Policy on behalf of Village of Stoney Run as \\npart of a joint purchasing group. WCPP is a risk purchasing group for \\nprimarily habitation and commercial real property locations.\\n\\nThe Underlying Action was initiated by Brian Pratt and Dawn Pratt \\n("Underlying Plaintiffs"), the co-administrators of the Estate of \\nDarlene Pratt ("Decedent") against the Village of Stoney Run, an \\napartment complex owned by a Bleznak Organization. As part of the \\naction, Underlying Plaintiffs asserted claims of negligence, breach of \\nwarranty, and breach of contract arising out of allegations that \\nPlaintiff failed to properly maintain and repair Decedent\'s apartment at\\n the Village of Stoney Run, resulting in dangerous living conditions, \\nincluding mold.\\n\\nSuit in the underlying action was forwarded to Lexington Insurance \\nCompany. AIG Claims, Inc. issued a disclaimer of coverage on behalf of \\nAIG Property Casualty, Inc. That policy of insurance disclaimed coverage\\n based upon the fungus/mold exclusion contained in the insurance policy.\\n\\nANALYSIS\\n\\nThe court must enforce the clear and unambiguous terms of the policy of \\ninsurance. A policy of insurance is ambiguous only where reasonably \\nintelligent persons would differ regarding its meaning. The court places\\n the obligation on the insurance carrier to draft clear and unambiguous \\ncontracts. Where the policy language will support two interpretations, \\nonly one of which will support a finding of coverage, the court will \\nchoose the interpretation favoring the insured and find that coverage \\nexists.\\n\\nLexington asserts that the policy of insurance contains a mold exclusion\\n which precludes coverage for the claims in the underlying suit.\\n\\nThe claims in this case arose from water leaks which resulted in the \\nconditions about which plaintiffs decedent in the underlying complaint \\nbases the cause of action. The court concluded that the interpretation \\nof the mold exclusion by plaintiff that the loss was due to the water \\nleaking, not mold per se, is equally reasonable to that interpretation \\nof the defendant insurers.\\n\\nUnder the circumstances it is the interpretation most favorable to the \\ninsured which controls. Accordingly, the court concluded that coverage \\nexists for the exposure to mold as a result of water leakage.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nCourts interpret insurance contracts differently than other contracts. \\nIf a court finds an ambiguity or, as here, an interpretation of an \\nexclusion by the insured and the insurer are equally reasonable, the \\ninterpretation of the insured will be enforced. Paraphrasing George \\nOrwell in his novel Animal Farm, all litigants are equal, some - the \\ninsured suing an insurer - are more equal than the insurer.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.\\n\\n\\nSubscribe to my substack at \\nhttps://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808\\n\\n Go to the Insurance Claims Library \\u2013 \\nhttp://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.