The Court of Appeals began its analysis by considering the general definitions of the terms: “functional obsolescence means a loss in value due to something inherent to the building itself such as old technology (think an electrical panel that is no longer acceptable under current codes) or bad design (think a five bedroom house that only has one bathroom). Specifically, found persuasive (1) the fact that the contract did not require consideration of all pertinent evidence-unlike the court-created “broad evidence rule” which has been adopted in Michigan in cases where actual cash value is not defined (2) the use of the term “deduction” suggested that market factors should not be taken into account because they can also increase and (3) the parties could have used the term “market value” if they intended it to be considered. The court there considered case law from the Southern District of New York in concluding that nothing in the insurance contract indicating the parties intended to take into account market prices when determining actual cash value. The federal district court in Michigan determined that the term obsolescence was unambiguous as used in the policy, and that it did not include economic obsolescence. The court summed up the dispute as whether the insurance company was to receive the benefit of a decrease in market values in Flint, Michigan. The insured, on the other hand, argued for a more narrow interpretation of the term that would only include functional obsolescence, which would mean the actual cash value would be $2,767,730. The policy required the insurance company to pay the insured the “actual cash value,” which was defined as “replacement cost less a deduction that reflects depreciation, age, condition and obsolescence.” The insurance company argued for a broad interpretation of obsolescence which would include economic obsolescence-decrease in market value-in which case the actual cash value would be $1,187,660. The insurance company that covered the building admitted that it owed the insured. The insured’s condominium building located in Flint, Michigan, was destroyed in a fire. 2014) whether the term “obsolescence” in the definition of “actual cash value” in a fire insurance policy accounts for external changes in market value through the concept of “economic obsolescence.” After surveying use of the terms the court determined that the commonly understood meaning of obsolescence did not account for market value decline. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed the meaning of the term “obsolescence” as used in an insurance policy in the context of determining the “actual cash value” of a fire loss in the case titled Whitehouse Condo.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |