First-Party Property

First-party property claims move quickly. Catastrophic losses, fire claims, water losses, business interruption disputes, appraisal demands, fraud concerns, and cause-and-origin issues often require immediate investigation, careful communication, and precise coverage analysis. Early decisions can affect the claim record, the insurer’s rights, the insured’s expectations, and the litigation posture if the dispute becomes contested.

BatesCarey helps domestic and international insurers manage significant first-party property exposures from first notice through final resolution. Insurers have trusted the firm with major property matters arising from some of the most consequential loss events in modern history, including the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and Superstorm Sandy.

The firm handles first-party property matters under commercial property policies, homeowner’s policies, standard Insurance Services Office (ISO) first-party forms, and binding authority arrangements used to place first-party business. BatesCarey’s lawyers routinely analyze novel interpretation issues, investigate coverage disputes, assist with reservations of rights, evaluate cause and origin, conduct examinations under oath, and position claims for litigation, arbitration, appraisal, mediation, or resolution.

First-party property disputes often turn on the details. BatesCarey advises insurers on actual cash value, replacement cost value, appraisal, arson and fire claims, bad faith and extracontractual exposure, sewer and drain endorsements, business interruption and extra expense, concurrent causation, cyber business interruption, dishonest acts, flood, earth movement, hail, increased cost of construction, insured and broker misrepresentation, duties after loss, intentional acts exclusions, named peril coverage, ordinance or law, period of indemnity, proximate cause, vandalism, and theft exclusions.

BatesCarey brings both coverage judgment and practical claims experience to these disputes. The firm helps insurers determine what happened, what the policy requires, what defenses should be preserved, what additional information is needed, and how the claim should be positioned before the record hardens. When appraisal or alternative dispute resolution provides the right path, BatesCarey helps clients use those tools effectively. When litigation is necessary, the firm defends the coverage position with discipline and focus.

Property claims can become complicated because they often involve overlapping causes, competing experts, incomplete documentation, disputed valuations, business income projections, repairs already performed, and pressure for rapid payment. BatesCarey helps insurers separate covered damage from uncovered loss, distinguish genuine exposure from inflated demand, and communicate positions in a way that is clear, defensible, and grounded in the policy.

Insurers turn to BatesCarey for first-party property matters because the firm understands the pace, pressure, and complexity of property claims. Whether the matter involves a catastrophic event, a disputed cause of loss, a time element claim, a fraud investigation, or a high-value commercial property dispute, BatesCarey gives insurers the analysis, strategy, and litigation support needed to reach the right result.

Representative Cases

• Robert Dziedzic v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Case No. 20234006591 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Ill. Sept. 10, 2024) (granting client, Merrimack’s, motion to dismiss breach of contract claim for failure to comply with insurance policy’s suit limitation provision requiring insured to file suit within 1 year of date of loss)
• Big Tomato LLC v. State Auto Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 642 F. Supp. 3d 552 (S.D. Miss. 2022) (granting client, State Auto’s, motion to dismiss insured’s claim for business income loss due to COVID-19 pandemic due to absence of direct physical loss)
• Coventry’s Deli v. State Auto Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 2022 WL 4537980 (S.D. Ohio) (Sept. 28, 2022) (granting client, State Auto’s, motion to dismiss a putative class action for insurer client over plaintiffs’ allegations that presence of COVID-19 on their properties caused structural alterations that required repairs.)
• S.I. Properties, LLC v. State Auto Property & Casualty Ins. Co., Case No. 2021-MR-80 (Cir. Ct. Jackson Cty., Ill. Sept. 20, 2022) (granting client, State Auto’s, motion for summary judgment under policy’s vacancy condition precluding coverage for vandalism and theft when insured property has been vacant for at least 60 consecutive days before the loss occurred)
• Danco LLC v. State Auto Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 2022 WL 1369064 (N.D. Miss. May 3, 2022) (granting client, State Auto’s, motion for judgment on the pleadings as to insured’s claim for business income losses due to COVID-19 pandemic, finding that policy endorsement covering an insured’s suspension of operations due to order of a civil authority resulting from exposure of the insured premises to a contagious or infectious disease was not implicated by government shutdown orders in response to the pandemic)
• University Management, Inc. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 2022 WL 805879 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 15, 2022) (Granting client, State Auto’s, motion for summary judgment on absence of coverage under food-borne illness endorsement.)
• Terry Black’s Barbecue, LLC v. State Auto. Mutual Ins. Co., 22 F.4th 450 (5th Cir. 2022) (affirming judgment for client, State Auto, on insured’s claim for business income loss due to COVID-19 pandemic, finding that government orders designed to curb spread of coronavirus during the COVID-19 pandemic did not result in direct physical loss or from actual or alleged exposure of the insured’s premises to contagious or infectious disease as necessary to trigger coverage under restaurant extension endorsement)
• Isaac’s Deli v. State Auto Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 539 F. Supp. 3d 424 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (granting client, State Auto’s, motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the insured’s claim for business income losses due to COVID-19 pandemic, finding that insured’s loss of use of its dine-in operations did not constitute direct physical loss and policy’s ordinance or law exclusion barred coverage for losses resulting from government shutdown orders)
• Burton Wells, Ltd. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 2009 WL 8463694 (N.D. Ill.); Secured a ruling by the district court to bifurcate a bad faith claim from the coverage claim, which halted all discovery into the bad faith allegations until the insured established it was entitled to coverage. Case was later dismissed with prejudice.
• Zaragon Holdings, Inc. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 2010 WL 3036762 (N.D. Ill.); Obtained summary judgment on behalf of commercial property insurance carrier, securing a declaration of no coverage for water damage to an apartment complex because the insurer proved that the damage was caused by surface water, which was excluded under the policy.
• Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Randolph Partners, LLC – 740 Series, 2010 WL 3155974 (N.D. Ill.); Obtained summary judgment on behalf of commercial property insurance carrier, securing a declaration of no coverage for extensive damage from a broken sprinkler head because insured failed to comply with a protective safeguards endorsement.
• Zaragon Holdings, Inc. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 2011 WL 1374980 (N.D. Ill.); Obtained summary judgment on behalf of commercial property insurance carrier, securing a declaration that storm damage to the roofs of the insured premises was not fortuitous and, therefore, was not subject to coverage.
• Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. 2930 North Sheridan, LLC, Case No. 1:08-cv-3543 (N.D. Ill.); Successfully defended an insurer from a multimillion-dollar claim for damages related to asbestos discovered during renovation, resulting in a voluntary dismissal of the insured’s claims for coverage after the insurer filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
• Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Clarinet, LLC, Case No. 4:07-cv-581 (E.D. Mo.); Successfully defended an insurer in a trial concerning a coverage dispute and bad faith allegations related to the collapse of a historic building during renovations.
• Delta Technical Products v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., Case No. 14 Ill. App. 1st 122158 (Ill. 1st Dist.); Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the insurer, securing a declaration that a sewer and drain endorsement was not ambiguous and the policy did not cover loss due to flood. On appeal, the First District Appellate Court of Illinois confirmed the ruling and also agreed there was a bona fide coverage dispute barring bad faith under Illinois law.
• 21st Century Dental Care, LLC v. Sentinel Insurance Co., Case No. 1:13-cv-05863 (N.D. Ill.); Successfully defended an insurer in a breach of contract case seeking additional business income and replacement cost coverage following a rainstorm at a dental practice.
• Advanced Radiant Systems v. Peerless Indemnity Ins. Co., Case No. 1:14-cv-01943 (S.D. Ind.); Successfully defended an insurer in a breach of contract action brought by the insured seeking a belated appraisal and supplemental business income coverage.
• Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Indiana Insurance Co., Case No. 1:12-cv-07401 (N.D. Ill.); Successfully defended an insurer in a declaratory judgment case seeking a determination that builder’s risk insurance policy provided coverage for a residential fire loss for contractor who was not a named insured.
• Cosmetique Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., Case No. 1:11-cv-0774 (N.D. Ill.); Successfully defended an insurer in a declaratory judgment action seeking reimbursement of coverage following a theft of its proprietary customer list.
• Fox v. American Economy Insurance Co., Case No. 1:10-cv-02580 (N.D. lll.); Successfully defended an insurer in a declaratory judgment action seeking business income and ordinance or law coverage at a podiatry practice following a frozen pipe loss.
• Lyon College v. Lexington Insurance Co., Case No. 1:13-cv-00073 (S.D. Ark.); Successfully defended an insurer in a declaratory judgment action seeking additional coverage for increased cost of construction and business income following a fire at the student commons building.
• Restoration Specialists, LLC v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., Case No. 1:08-cv-00644 (N.D. Ill.); Successfully defended an insurer in a declaratory judgment and bad faith action involving an insurance dispute stemming from the Wrigleyville Porch Collapse.