Excerpts from claimsjournal.com: A federal appellate court recently ruled that an insurer could be responsible for up to $14 million of a mortgage company’s settlement with the estates of two Chicago firefighters who died while responding to a fire at an abandoned laundry facility. The case, *Apex Mortgage Corp. v. Great Northern Insurance Co.*, highlights a complex legal battle over insurance coverage and property possession. The incident occurred in 2010 when firefighters Corey Ankum and Edward Stringer were killed after the roof of the abandoned building collapsed during a fire. The building had been left in disrepair, with code violations cited by the City of Chicago. At the time, the property was owned by Chuck and Richard Dai, who had defaulted on their mortgage. Apex Mortgage Corp., which had threatened foreclosure, initially accepted the deed from the Dais but later returned it after determining the property wasn’t worth pursuing. Apex had conducted an inspection, installed new locks, and placed a tarp over the roof, but ultimately decided not to proceed with the foreclosure. The company sent the deed back to the Dais in April 2009, along with a letter urging them to secure the property. However, the Dais claimed they never received the letter. Following the tragedy, the firefighters’ estates filed wrongful death lawsuits against Apex, which eventually led to a $15 million settlement. Apex’s primary insurer paid the $1 million policy limit, but the company sought the remaining $14 million from its excess policy with Federal Insurance Co. Federal denied coverage, citing an exclusion for properties held by a “mortgagee in possession.†A district court judge sided with Federal, ruling that Apex was indeed in possession of the property at the time of the fire. However, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, stating that there was sufficient evidence to question whether Apex truly had control over the property. The appeals court noted that the property remained in poor condition, with the city having issued multiple citations to the Dais. It also pointed out that Chuck Dai had ordered repairs after being cited for code violations, though he failed to complete them. He was later sentenced to jail for his negligence. Additionally, the court rejected Federal’s argument that Apex’s settlement with the families implied liability, emphasizing that settlements are voluntary agreements and do not establish legal responsibility. The case was sent back to the district court for further proceedings, leaving the issue of coverage unresolved. This ruling could have significant implications for how insurers interpret exclusions related to property possession in similar cases. Eco-friendly Waste Disposal Solutions,Biodegradable Plastic Alternatives,Home Composting Compatible Bags Henan Kepeiao New Materials Co.,Ltd. , https://www.kopeochem.com