In American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co. v. 51 Roses Mill LLC, a fire destroyed property that was owned by Bridge33 Capital LLC ("Bridge33"), insured by Plaintiff American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company ("American Guarantee"), and under contract for sale to Defendant 51 Roses Mill LLC ("51 Roses"). The contract included an assignment of insurance proceeds payable for the loss. American Guarantee sought a declaratory judgment that Bridge33's assignment of its insurance claim to 51 Roses following the fire was invalid or that, if the assignment was valid, the amount that 51 Roses may recover under the policy was the actual cash value of the lost Property and did not include any claim to replacement cost value. American Guarantee argued that no assignment of the right to receive replacement cost value occurred because, at the time of assignment, Bridge33 had not satisfied the condition precedent of rebuilding the destroyed structure within two years and American Guarantee had not consented to any such assignment. In opposition, 51 Roses asserted that once the loss occurred, any and all insurance proceeds arising from that loss that were contemplated by the policy became assignable regardless of the existence of any conditions precedent to receiving those proceeds. The Court noted that Connecticut follows the clear majority rule that contractual anti-assignment clauses do not bar assignment of an insured's claim after the loss that is the subject of the claim has occurred. The Court also observed that the idea behind the majority rule is that, once the insured-against loss has occurred, the policy-holder essentially is transferring a cause of action rather than a particular risk profile. Moreover, the Court noted a lack of legal authority in which an assignment was invalidated because the insured failed to meet any post-loss contingencies or conditions prior to the assignment. For these reasons, the Court granted summary judgment for 51 Roses to the extent that it sought a determination that the assignment from Bridge33 included the right to seek replacement cost value under the terms of the policy.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
