Top

Put a Century of Experience In Your Corner

At Osborn, Reed & Burke, we believe strong legal representation begins with understanding your story. Tell us about your situation, and a member of our team will be in touch to discuss next steps.

  • By submitting, you agree to receive text messages from Osborn, Reed And Burke Llp at the number provided, including those related to your inquiry, follow-ups, and review requests, via automated technology. Consent is not a condition of purchase. Msg & data rates may apply. Msg frequency may vary. Reply STOP to cancel or HELP for assistance. Acceptable Use Policy

When You Fail to Mitigate Your Loss; an Insurance Perspective

|

Appellate Update – Third Department: Failure to Mitigate Insured Losses

In Binghamton Precast & Supply Corp. v Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, the plaintiff brought suit against its insurer to recover for business losses accrued when an essential piece of machinery broke down,causing a cessation in production for approximately two days. The plaintiff had a business interruption policy with the insurer which covered the piece of machinery in question and moved for summary judgment seeking a specific amount of alleged losses. The trial court granted that motion and the defendant appealed. As part of its appeal, the defendant argued that the plaintiff had not established its rightto the amount sought. Specifically, thedefendant cited to a provision of the insurance agreement which required the plaintiff to reduce its losses by undertaking efforts to make up for lost business within a reasonable period of time and “make use of every reasonable means to reduce or avert loss, including working extra time or overtime.” The defendant argued that the plaintiff could have scheduled production on the ensuing weekend, after the machinery had been fixed. The Third Department agreed that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had appropriately mitigated its losses and reversed the Supreme Court’s decision.