James Eastham | First Party Coverage Blog | February 23, 2018
In the recent case of Libman v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24580 (N.D. IL February 15, 2018), the Court addressed whether a property owner was entitled to replacement cost coverage for loss at an insured location which took place subsequent to the property’s foreclosure and agreement for short sale but prior to a short sale of the property closing. Although the insured performed remediation work prior to the short sale, the insureds did not otherwise repair the property. Regardless, the insureds were able to sell the property after it was damaged for the same benefit as was agreed to prior to the damage. Great Northern issued a property policy covering the subject location. Great Northern did not dispute that the policy provided coverage for the mitigation costs. Rather, it argued that the insureds did not suffer a loss beyond the mitigation costs because they sold the building and would receive an inequitable “double recovery” if they were paid the replacement cost despite receiving the benefit from the short sale.
In ruling in favor of Great Northern, the court found that the insured had not suffered an actual loss beyond the cost of the mitigation. The damaged property was sold for the same benefit that was agreed to before the damage occurred. Therefore, the court concluded that because the insureds were not forced to discount the benefit from the sale they had not suffered any actual loss. Although the insureds argued that the lack of controlling policy language dictated a different result, the court relied on general principles of indemnity to hold that prior to reaching the question of whether an event occurred that might trigger a policy’s coverage provisions; it must first be determined whether the insured suffered actual loss requiring indemnification. Having concluded that no such actual loss had been sustained, summary judgment was granted in favor of Great Northern.