ARTICLE
7 September 2021

Trump Entertainment V. Lexington

MC
Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass

Contributor

Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass
The court granted summary judgment against Trump Entertainment Resorts and related companies on a $5.1 million claim for alleged lost gambling profits stemming from Hurricane Sandy. Mound.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. v. Lexington Insurance Company No.: ATL-L-2458-15 (N.J. Super. Ct., Law Div. March 14, 2018)

The court granted summary judgment against Trump Entertainment Resorts and related companies on a $5.1 million claim for alleged lost gambling profits stemming from Hurricane Sandy. Mound Cotton's clients, Lexington Insurance Company and Aspen Insurance Company, were Trump's first-party property insurers.

Trump contended that in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, its customers in the New York/New Jersey area were adversely affected by property damage to their homes, keeping them from patronizing the casinos and causing a decline in gambling profits at the Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Plaza casinos. Trump based its insurance claim on the policies' contingent business interruption coverage, which insured against loss "directly resulting from physical loss or damage of the type insured...to property of the type insured, at any locations of direct suppliers or customers."

Trump asserted that it could prove its claims by submitting the addresses of its regular customers and correlating those addresses with maps of Sandy flooding. The court agreed with the insurers that Trump's evidence failed in two respects. First, Trump had "not provided any evidence to support [its] contention that post-storm conditions affected actual gambling customers." Second, there was "a complete lack of evidence" to identify or quantify what portion of the alleged reduction in profits was caused by hurricane damage to customers' properties, as opposed to other factors. The court rejected Trump's case—based on the list of customers' addresses and Sandy flood maps—as "lacking any quantifiable and specific evidence."

DOWNLOAD

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.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

ARTICLE
7 September 2021

Trump Entertainment V. Lexington

United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Contributor

Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More