California winery sues excess insurer over denied $ 2 million claim



According to Fairwinds, he was covered by two policies at the time of the Sept. 27, 2020 wildfire. The first was an $ 8.2 million master policy with Beazley Insurance Services, and the other was an insurance policy. surplus with Kinsale for $ 2 million, which was intended to cover any damage over and above the limit Beazley could cover.

When the wildfire destroyed the main building and Fairwinds tasting room, the winery predicted that the excess policy would be triggered, as it believed the property losses were greater than the combined coverage, according to the lawsuit.

However, Kinsale refused to pay Fairwinds’ claim. According to the complaint, Kinsale argued that Beazley’s coverage was adequate enough to cover the losses of the winery. Court documents also noted that Kinsale had valued the main building and tasting room at Fairwinds at $ 4,505,893 – an amount less than the value covered by Beazley, and therefore Kinsale argued that she owed nothing. at Fairwinds.

“According to Kinsale’s interpretation, Fairwinds could never suffer a loss sufficient to trigger coverage under the franchise policy,” Fairwinds argued in his lawsuit.

Fairwinds also claimed in its lawsuit that Kinsale’s total appraisal of the main building, tank building, tasting room, company personal property and outdoor equipment was $ 6,542,831. , but the company still agreed to sell Fairwinds an additional $ 2 million policy.

“So even if Fairwinds lost every property in a wildfire, because the underlying policy coverage limit is greater than that $ 8,310,000, coverage under the excess policy would not be triggered. “said the lawsuit.

Napa Valley Registry said no trial date has been set for the trial, but a status conference is scheduled for February next year.


Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.