Insurers Have Cause For Optimism In Labor Cost Rulings

Law360 (June 3, 2021, 10:52 AM EDT) -- On May 12, in Butler v. The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of South Carolina decided that — so long as the cost of labor is embedded in the replacement cost of property, as in the case of a damaged roof — it "makes no sense for an insurer to include depreciation for materials and not for embedded labor."[1]

The Butler decision follows on the heels of the North Carolina Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Accardi v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co.,[2] which similarly concluded that it made "little sense" to differentiate between materials and labor costs....

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!