Lei v. On-Time Subsurface

During the course of the construction of a small commercial office building, subcontractor failed to properly shore vertical supports during excavation. As a result, the vertical supports shifted causing the building to partially collapse. Litigation for negligence was commenced against the contractor and subcontractor for lost rents, fines, and consequential damages. Settled following mediation for … Continued

Read More
insurance claims, coverage, long island, lawyers, property, damage, NYC,

​S ​Depot v. Tower Insurance & Contractors

Following roof located air HVAC work performed on an adjacent unit, a paper supply company sustained property damages as a result of a tarp being blown off the roof during a rainstorm. Tower Insurance denied the claim, alleging that the tarp being blown off the roof did not constitute damage, as was required by the … Continued

Read More

Tenants v. Supermarket

After a catastrophic fire destroyed an apartment building in Brooklyn, our office represented 12 tenants who were uninsured and had lost all of their contents. After securing the return of each of their security deposits, a lawsuit was commenced against the landlord , the supermarket tenant, and the management company. Through investigation and the retention … Continued

Read More
Greenblatt Agulnick -AskSteven- property damage insurance claim insurance, bad-faith lawyer, property damage, negligence

ASK STEVEN

What are the most common reasons why an insurance company would deny a property damage insurance claim? Insurance companies deny property damage insurance claims for a variety of reasons. Some policies only cover certain types of losses. These are called named peril policies. For example, basic named peril policies may not cover an unnamed peril … Continued

Read More
insurance claims, coverage, long island, lawyers, property, damage, NYC,

Won v. Co

Following a frozen pipe and significant property damages, the homeowner’s insurance company denied the insured’s claim alleging a failure to maintain heat at the premises. Furthermore, the insurance company further alleged that the premises was not “occupied” at the time of the loss. Utilizing certain ambiguities in the insurance policy, relevant and novel case law, … Continued

Read More