Senate fails to renew TRIA

The United States Senate has failed to renew the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) before its expiration on December 31, 2014. 

I offered my suggestions for amendments to TRIA here. 

Here's a sampling of articles on the effect of the failure to renew TRIA: 

Insurance Journal

Insurance Thought Leadership

Property Casualty 360

National Review Online

Payroll expenses are not part of gross revenue; why policies are impossible to understand

Gene Killian at New Jersey Insurance Coverage Litigation has blogged about a Massachusetts Appeals Court case, Verrill Farms LLC v. Family Farm Cas. Ins. Co., 86 Mass. App. Ct. 577 (2014).  The case addressed business interruption coverage and held that payroll expenses should be deducted from gross revenue in the calculation of profit or loss to determine loss of business income. 

Killian wonders why insurance policies are so badly written.  I disagree with both of his hypotheses: that the underwriters think the nature of the risks they seek to cover is complicated, or that they think that if they write the policies in an arcane and convoluted manner they'll have wiggle room when coverage disputes arise.

Policies are complicated because they are written reactively rather than proactively.  They react to court decisions that interpret them. 


Say there's an exclusion that provides, "This policy excludes damage to trees."  A court holds the exclusion does not apply to apples that have fallen from trees.  (For those of you who did not grow up near orchards, such apples are used for cider.) 

The next version of the exclusion will provide, "This policy excludes damage to trees and to the product of any tree that has not yet been harvested." A court  holds that that exclusion does not apply to damage to apples sitting in a wheelbarrow under a tree, because they have been harvested. 

The next version of the exclusion will provide, "This policy excludes damage to trees and to the product of any tree that has not yet been harvested, and to the product of any tree that has been harvested that remains on the insured property."  A court decision holds that "the product of any tree that has been harvested" applies only when the the tree itself has been harvested (such as for lumber) and not when its fruit has been harvested.

The next version of the exclusion will provide, "This policy excludes damage to trees and to any tree that has not been harvested and to any product that has not yet been harvested that grows on trees on the property and to any tree that has been harvested and remains on the property and to any product that grows on trees that has been harvested and remains on the property." 

By now no one can read through the exclusion without their eyes crossing, much less figure out what it purports to exclude.  Combine it with a few policy definitions and maybe an anti-concurrent causation clause, and . . . welcome to a modern insurance policy. 

Massachusetts Appeals Court continues trend of PIP decisions against insurers

On April 7, 2007 a passenger was injured in an automobile accident.  Pilgrim was the PIP carrier.  Bryan Hartunian provided orthopedic treatments to the insured.  Pilgrim paid some of the bills from the treatment but withheld payment of $990 on the ground that the charges exceeded an amount that was reasonable in comparison to other medical providers in the same geographic area.  However, it did not notify Hartunian  within ten days of its intention not to pay. 

After twelve months of demanding payment, Hartunian sued Pilgrim in the Massachusetts District Court.  In addition to the unpaid portion of his bill he sought damages under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A.  Pilgrim then issued payment of $990 and filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts of the complaint.  The motion was denied with respect to the 93A count.  Pilgrim was found liable for breach of 93A after a bench and subsequently appealed.

In Hartunian v. Pilgrim Ins. Co.,  __ N.E.3d __, 2014 WL 6607866 (Mass. App. Ct.), Pilgrim argued that its refusal to make payment was not an unfair business practice because it disputed the obligation to pay in good faith.  The court held that that argument ignored the fact that an insurer must, by statute, make PIP payments within ten days or notify the submitting physician or claimant of its intention not to pay. 

Pilgrim also argued that it did not act in bad when  it had an independent medical exam conducted by a physical therapist (apparently a common thing now) rather than a practitioner licensed in the same medical specialty as Hartunian. While not dismissing out of hand the use in all circumstances of a physical therapist for an IME, the court held that whether such use is in good faith raises a factual issue. 

Similarly, the court held that review of the bills by a billing program is not automatically a bad faith act by an insurer but that "its use as a substitute for a practitioner's review of billing statements and underlying services provides an additional basis for an inference of Pilgrim's lack of good faith."