Skip to main content

Accardi v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co.

NCFebruary 28, 2020No. 42A19
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Appeal from Business Court order and opinion

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Business Court affirmed that insurers can depreciate labor costs when calculating actual cash value in insurance coverage disputes.

Excerpt

Appeal from an order and opinion of the Business Court concluding that insurers can depreciate labor costs when calculating actual cash value.

What This Ruling Means

**Accardi v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company** This case involved a dispute over how insurance companies calculate the "actual cash value" when paying claims. The main question was whether Hartford Underwriters could reduce (depreciate) labor costs when determining how much money to pay for covered losses. The plaintiff, Accardi, argued that insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to subtract depreciation from labor costs when calculating claim payments. Hartford Underwriters disagreed, saying they had the right to depreciate both materials and labor when determining actual cash value. The North Carolina Business Court ruled in favor of Hartford Underwriters. The court decided that insurance companies can legally depreciate labor costs when calculating actual cash value for insurance claims, not just material costs. **What this means for workers:** This ruling could affect workers whose personal property or business equipment is covered by insurance policies that use "actual cash value" calculations. When filing insurance claims, workers may receive lower payouts because insurers can now reduce both material and labor costs for depreciation. Workers should carefully review their insurance policies and consider "replacement cost" coverage instead of "actual cash value" coverage when possible, as replacement cost policies typically provide more comprehensive protection.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

More Rulings in This Case

Other orders and opinions in Accardi from the same court.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.