Pa. Supreme Court Holds Building Collapse Coverage Ambiguous

July 26, 2005

  • July 27, 2005 at 7:34 am
    JR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So, just because it is probable that a building may collapse, the insurance company MUST pay, even before it collapses?

    It is probable that homes in southern California will burn up in a wildfire, and homes a little north will collapse in a mudslide, homes in Florida are much more likely to blow away in a hurricane or have flooding, where do I file this potential, probable claim that may happen? the more I hear about lawyers, the more I think they suck. Looks like companies better tighten the underwriting guidelines so that they only insure things that could never potentially have a claim

  • July 29, 2005 at 3:35 am
    JS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Absolutely pathetic decision. Where is the insureds duty to protect from further damage?

  • August 3, 2005 at 7:17 am
    Mark W. Kinsey, CRA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Where is the insured duty to MAINTAIN? Now the cost of property insurance will become greater due to companies insisting on pre-inspection of ALL property risk, as well they SHOULD. Of course the delay in policy insuance will cause a few E&O’s for us producer types but the attorneys have to perpetuate their feast don’t they? Insurance producers and contractors the new approved and improved targets for lawyers….buy up the coverage now while it’s still affordable because after a few of the new claims you won’t be able to pay for it.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*