Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Peck v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co.

United States District Court, D. Idaho

September 30, 2016

KIM PECK, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          B. Lynn Winmill Chief Judge.

         INTRODUCTION

         Pending before the Court are Defendant Cincinnati Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 33) and Plaintiff Kim Peck's Motion for Leave to Amend to Add a Claim for Punitive Damages (Dkt. 32). Having reviewed the record in this case and considering the arguments of the parties, the Court finds that oral argument is not needed. The Court addresses each motion below.

         FACTS

         This is an insurance case concerning a water loss event at a Boise, Idaho hotel and condominium building (the “Grove”). Ms. Peck owns a condominium unit at the Grove, unit 1403 (“1403”). Complaint at ¶ 5, Dkt. No. 1-1; Peck at 14; Peck EUO at 19, Dkt. 35- 1. Plaintiff's unit 1403 is part of the Grove's condominium homeowners association (“HOA”). Complaint at ¶ 8, Dkt. No. 1-1.

         The Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”) issued a property insurance policy (the “Grove Policy”), number CAP 5219615, to the HOA and the hotel (“Block 22”), effective March 31, 2012 through March 31, 2013. Orgill Dec. at ¶ 9, Dkt. 38-1. The Grove Policy provided, inter alia, property damage coverage to Block 22, a hotel investment group, and the HOA for a shared Boise, Idaho hotel and condominium building (“the Grove”). On the HOA's part, the Grove Policy covers the walls, floors, ceilings, fixtures and affixed finishings of the Grove. H&R at 25-26; 35, Dkt. 35-5. The Grove Policy does not cover the condominium unit owners' personal property or alternative living expense (“ALE”). H&R at 26, Dkt. 35-5. Pursuant to its bylaws, the HOA receives any proceeds of the Grove Policy and determines the amount of proceeds to apportion to units of the HOA. Members of the HOA are bound by the HOA's apportionment determinations. HOA at Ex. 6, Dkt. 35-3.[1]

         Cincinnati issued policy number C01 0620671 to Plaintiff Kim Peck, effective April 12, 2013 through April 12, 2014 (the “Peck Policy”). Orgill Dec. at ¶ 10, Dkt. 38. The Peck Policy provides property and liability coverage to unit 1403.

         In October 2012, a substantial quantity of water was discharged from a fire sprinkler on the 15th floor at the Grove as a result of a lit candle. Passmore at 30-31, Dkt. 36-1; Thomann at 26, Dkt. 36-2; Korondi Dec. at ¶ 7, Dkt. 34-1. The HOA and Block 22 submitted claims under the Grove Policy. HOA at 8, Dkt. 35-3; Block 22 at 18-19, Dkt. 35-4. Ms. Peck submitted claims under the Peck Policy. Peck EUO at 6-7, Dkt. 35-1.

         A. Block 22 Claim

         Block 22 submitted a claim to Cincinnati under the Grove Policy for the loss. Block 22 at 18-19, Dkt. 35-4. Cincinnati paid $1, 753, 482.78 to Block 22 for this claim. Orgill Dec. at ¶ 6, Dkt. 38. Block 22's President John Cunningham testified that Block 22 was paid everything it had coming to it from Cincinnati. Block 22 at 31-32, Dkt. 35-4. Block 22 testified that Cincinnati addressed its claim appropriately and reasonably; that it had no complaints about Cincinnati's response; that it received what it was entitled to under the policy; that Cincinnati was diligent and responsive and that it caused no delay. Block 22 at 34-35, Dkt. 35-4.

         B. HOA Claim

         The HOA submitted a claim to Cincinnati under the Grove Policy for the water loss. HOA at 8, Dkt. 35-3. Cincinnati paid $1, 573, 538.53 to the HOA for this claim. HOA at 10, Dkt. 35-3; HOA at Ex. 2, Dkt. 35-3; Orgill Dec. at ¶ 7, Dkt. 38. Of that amount, the HOA apportioned $96, 920.91 to 1403. HOA at 12, Dkt. 35-3; HOA at Ex. 2, Dkt. 35-3. Of that amount, $84, 937.44 has been paid to Ms. Peck. HOA at 12, Dkt. 35-3; HOA at Ex. 2, Dkt. 35-3. The balance is being held by the HOA for future work to be done at its expense in 1403. HOA at 12, Dkt. 35-3.

         The HOA retained RestCon to provide consultation services as to the health and safety concerns involved in remediation of the Grove. HOA at 25-26, Dkt. 35-3. Restcon performed numerous tests and inspections at the Grove, including several times at 1403. Passmore at 82, Dkt. 36-1. RestCon then developed reports with recommendations as to the scope of remedial work. Passmore at 88, Dkt. 36-1; Thomann at 43-46, 56-59, 74-75, Dkt. 36-2. Aside from its final report, all recommendations by RestCon were implemented by the contractors. Cincinnati maintains that it never impeded RestCon throughout the restoration process. Passmore at 88-90, 94-95, Dkt. 36-1; Thomann at 88-89, Dkt. 36-2. Cincinnati paid all of RestCon's bills, and the HOA testified that Cincinnati has paid all amounts submitted for the loss. HOA at 44; 62-64, Dkt. 35-3.

         C. Peck Personal 1403 Claim

         Ms. Peck submitted a total of three claims under the Peck Policy. Peck EUO at 6-7, Dkt. 35-1. One for 1403, and two concerning her subsequent temporary housing (“Royal Plaza” and “Reese Street”). Peck EUO at 6-7, Dkt. 35-1.

         Approximately one week after the water loss, Ms. Peck moved out of 1403. Peck EUO at 43, Dkt. 35-1. Ms. Peck then moved to a series of temporary residences. Cincinnati paid Ms. Peck's additional living expenses with respect to these locations until the $80, 000 limit of liability for ALE coverage under the Peck Policy was exhausted. Peck at 22, 25, 40, Dkt. 35-2; Peck EUO at 65-66, Dkt. 35-1; Korondi at ¶ 20, Dkt. 34.

         Cincinnati paid Ms. Peck for all sums claimed by her that it determined to be a covered loss. Korondi Dec. at ¶ 10, Dkt. 34. Ms. Peck has admitted that the actual damage to 1403 is being paid by the Grove Policy, not the Peck Policy. Peck EUO at 40-41, Dkt. 35-1.

         D. Claims Processing

         During the development of this claim, both parties experienced delay due to the complex nature of the claim and the acts of third parties. Korondi Dec. at ¶ 11, Dkt. 34. For example, beginning in January 2013, Peter Korondi, Cincinnati's independent adjustor, made multiple requests of Belfor for estimates of contents cleaning costs. Korondi Dec. at ¶ 11, Dkt. 34. Belfor's estimate was an important part of the process of determining those costs. Korondi Dec. at ¶ 11, Dkt. 34. Korondi then directed multiple follow-up communications to Belfor over several months because the estimate did not arrive. Korondi Dec. at ¶ 11, Dkt. 34. Some of these communications were by telephone. Korondi Dec. at ¶ 11, Dkt. 34. By email dated June 21, 2013 from Belfor, Korondi was told that it had been instructed by Peck not to communicate with him about this. Korondi Dec. at ¶ 11 and Ex. 1, Dkt. 34.

         During the development of this claim, Cincinnati experienced delay related to Dr. Passmore's work. Korondi Dec. at ¶ 13, Dkt. 34. Each of the many sampling events she conducted required a cessation of work for the sampling to occur. Korondi Dec. at ¶ 13, Dkt. 34. There would then be days or weeks before sampling data returned from the laboratory. Korondi Dec. at ¶ 13, Dkt. 34. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.