Why is this ridiculous? If he caused the damage, this is standard subrogation. The person who suffers damage carries insurance to protect himself. It sounds as though his insurance carrier did just that and paid the claim, indemnifying the insured. Now, it’s a matter of subrogation, asking the injuring party to meet their responsibilities.
Why is it that people seem to think that insurance companies are supposed to cover everyone involved, even the people who cause an accident or damage, but who aren’t a party to the insurance? It’s a transferance of risk from the insured to the company, not from the world to the insurance company.
Their action, from the facts presented, seems very appropriate! If Kravitz happens to have some kind of insurance to cover his liability, then they can pay. If he is not insured for his property damage liability, then it seems he’ll have to pay! (If an insurance company weren’t involved, would this be considered ridiculous to expect Kravitz to pay for the damage he caused?)
If it were your high dollar luxury apartment that was steeped in sewer water, I’m sure you would want the responsible party to pay. Brett is right, Kravitz carries insurance to protect himself just like the unfortunate neighbor downstream from the Kravitz commode. And $300,000 sounds like alot, but there may have been costly repairs to walls, light fixtures,floors, carpets, furniture and other personal property.
Considering Mr. Kravitz’s place is valued at 8 million, and we use that base as a calculator for damage percentages assuming the same square footage, 300,000 is .04 % of the value of the property. This is a reasonable cost for an overflow, and subsequent damage.
Regardless of how deep his pockets are, he is responsible for the damage. If it were my toilet, I would be responsible. This is called liability. My toilet overflowed and caused damage to his property, therefore, I am liable. This is why I have insurance, so that if I cause damage that was not intentional, then it will pay upto my policy limits.
The insurance company is right and this practice happens all the time.
If the claim was filed correctly against Mr. Kravitz policy in the first place, his insurance company would not have to be involved. This in return, caused his company to bear the expense of handling a claim that’s really not there’s to begin with.
If you were in Lenny’s position and caused this damage, but did not have Lenny’s money, would your answer be different? Would you think that you were not responsible? An overflowing toilet is a common occurence. What kind of precedent does this set for the average American who could not afford to be sued? If he didn’t have deep pockets, they probably wouldn’t be suing.
If you were in Lenny’s position and caused this damage, but did not have Lenny’s money, would your answer be different? Would you think that you were not responsible? An overflowing toilet is a common occurence. What kind of precedent does this set for the average American who could not afford to be sued? If he didn’t have deep pockets, they probably wouldn’t be suing.
the issue is really whether or not Lenny K was NEGLIGENT! If he knew toilet was not working right, or neglected to care for it, perhaps he would be deemed negligent. He does have insurance coverage for this type of event, and regardless of wealth, all owners and tenants SHOULD maintain liability coverage!
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
THIS IS RIDICULOUS – AMICA KNOWS WHERE TO FIND THE DEEP POCKETS
Why is this ridiculous? If he caused the damage, this is standard subrogation. The person who suffers damage carries insurance to protect himself. It sounds as though his insurance carrier did just that and paid the claim, indemnifying the insured. Now, it’s a matter of subrogation, asking the injuring party to meet their responsibilities.
Why is it that people seem to think that insurance companies are supposed to cover everyone involved, even the people who cause an accident or damage, but who aren’t a party to the insurance? It’s a transferance of risk from the insured to the company, not from the world to the insurance company.
Their action, from the facts presented, seems very appropriate! If Kravitz happens to have some kind of insurance to cover his liability, then they can pay. If he is not insured for his property damage liability, then it seems he’ll have to pay! (If an insurance company weren’t involved, would this be considered ridiculous to expect Kravitz to pay for the damage he caused?)
What’s really ridiculous is that over $300,000 was paid for damage resulting from an overflowing toilet. Gimme a break!
If it were your high dollar luxury apartment that was steeped in sewer water, I’m sure you would want the responsible party to pay. Brett is right, Kravitz carries insurance to protect himself just like the unfortunate neighbor downstream from the Kravitz commode. And $300,000 sounds like alot, but there may have been costly repairs to walls, light fixtures,floors, carpets, furniture and other personal property.
Considering Mr. Kravitz’s place is valued at 8 million, and we use that base as a calculator for damage percentages assuming the same square footage, 300,000 is .04 % of the value of the property. This is a reasonable cost for an overflow, and subsequent damage.
Regardless of how deep his pockets are, he is responsible for the damage. If it were my toilet, I would be responsible. This is called liability. My toilet overflowed and caused damage to his property, therefore, I am liable. This is why I have insurance, so that if I cause damage that was not intentional, then it will pay upto my policy limits.
The insurance company is right and this practice happens all the time.
If the claim was filed correctly against Mr. Kravitz policy in the first place, his insurance company would not have to be involved. This in return, caused his company to bear the expense of handling a claim that’s really not there’s to begin with.
If you were in Lenny’s position and caused this damage, but did not have Lenny’s money, would your answer be different? Would you think that you were not responsible? An overflowing toilet is a common occurence. What kind of precedent does this set for the average American who could not afford to be sued? If he didn’t have deep pockets, they probably wouldn’t be suing.
If you were in Lenny’s position and caused this damage, but did not have Lenny’s money, would your answer be different? Would you think that you were not responsible? An overflowing toilet is a common occurence. What kind of precedent does this set for the average American who could not afford to be sued? If he didn’t have deep pockets, they probably wouldn’t be suing.
If I didnt have Lenny’s money, I wouldnt have neighbors with the money they have. Apply that .04% to your neighbor’s house…
the issue is really whether or not Lenny K was NEGLIGENT! If he knew toilet was not working right, or neglected to care for it, perhaps he would be deemed negligent. He does have insurance coverage for this type of event, and regardless of wealth, all owners and tenants SHOULD maintain liability coverage!