As everyone is well aware the world is a dangerous place and the nations police force or first responders are a crucial factor in keeping all of us safe. It’s amazing that the Maine Court sluffs off it’s responsibility to the private sector when one of their own is in need of help. The worst part is the idiotic reasoning behind their decision. Hopefully the state of Maine will step up to the plate and make this right.
Well when a stupid comment is put out (like bill’s) I will call them on it. If you think that it makes me less credible then that’s YOUR PROBLEM and not mine. The point of my first sentence was that i never got into about insurance following the vehicle and not the driver (even my 5 y/o nephew knows that). I talking about coverage for a loss on multiple policies. As for the courts “finding” coverage for this loss, the courts did no such thing, they only pointed out that the carriers were wrong and pointed out why there is coverage. read an auto policy sometime it might give you some “credibility”.
Mary B. Covg. follows the vehicle not the driver. Since the vehicle was provided for his regular use and he was in the course of his business, the fact that it was stolen is moot. Coverage excludes both situations period. As for any applicable coverage from the PD, it doesn’t simply stop because it was stolen. This is a bad decision regardless.
No sh*t sherlock but one can still obtain coverage under secondary or tertiary policy for this loss which is what happened here. It’s pretty easy to figure this out and one does not need to be a rocket scientist to find coverage for this loss.
Mary B, you just shot your creditability with your Sherlock comment, dear. Any court can find coverage even if there is none & this is still a crappy decision.
By this court’s reasoning in this decision, the vehicle my employer provides to me is not one that is furnished for regular use once it is stolen. That just seems assinine to me. It was still provided for regular use, regardless of the fact it was stolen. I agree with several posters that this was a bad decision by the court.
I have always read your comments with interest as they were thought out, but when you stooped to the comment level, I had difficulty with your attitude. You are truly blessed with a 5 yr old nephew that understands insurance. I do read an auto policy on occaision and believe there is an exclusion for work related incidents unless at the employers direction and using one’s own vehicle. This is stll a crappy decision.
Read the auto policy again with respect to the UM.UIM portion of the policy. Presenting a UM.UIM claim on your auto policy is considered a 3rd party claim and not a first party claim so don’t get that mixed up with the work related exclusion as that does not apply here. That exclusion might be used for 1st party coverage (collision, med pay, comp losses, etc.) I don’t see why this is a bad decision.
The guy gets hit by an uninsured motorist, the policy for the work vehicle does not have UIM.UM coverage so he makes a 3rd party claim on his personal auto policy (and if you read this portion of the policy you will note that there is coverage for this loss) and the carrier wrongly denied the claim. Yes, I understand the vehicle that was stolen was his but that doesn’t negate the fact that there was coverage on his own policy.
Oh and sorry for offending everyone with the no sh!t sherlock comment, didn’t realize everyone had such thin skin and no humor.
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.
As everyone is well aware the world is a dangerous place and the nations police force or first responders are a crucial factor in keeping all of us safe. It’s amazing that the Maine Court sluffs off it’s responsibility to the private sector when one of their own is in need of help. The worst part is the idiotic reasoning behind their decision. Hopefully the state of Maine will step up to the plate and make this right.
Well when a stupid comment is put out (like bill’s) I will call them on it. If you think that it makes me less credible then that’s YOUR PROBLEM and not mine. The point of my first sentence was that i never got into about insurance following the vehicle and not the driver (even my 5 y/o nephew knows that). I talking about coverage for a loss on multiple policies. As for the courts “finding” coverage for this loss, the courts did no such thing, they only pointed out that the carriers were wrong and pointed out why there is coverage. read an auto policy sometime it might give you some “credibility”.
Can it be?? The same man I knew 15 years ago??
Mary B. Covg. follows the vehicle not the driver. Since the vehicle was provided for his regular use and he was in the course of his business, the fact that it was stolen is moot. Coverage excludes both situations period. As for any applicable coverage from the PD, it doesn’t simply stop because it was stolen. This is a bad decision regardless.
No sh*t sherlock but one can still obtain coverage under secondary or tertiary policy for this loss which is what happened here. It’s pretty easy to figure this out and one does not need to be a rocket scientist to find coverage for this loss.
Mary B, you just shot your creditability with your Sherlock comment, dear. Any court can find coverage even if there is none & this is still a crappy decision.
By this court’s reasoning in this decision, the vehicle my employer provides to me is not one that is furnished for regular use once it is stolen. That just seems assinine to me. It was still provided for regular use, regardless of the fact it was stolen. I agree with several posters that this was a bad decision by the court.
I have always read your comments with interest as they were thought out, but when you stooped to the comment level, I had difficulty with your attitude. You are truly blessed with a 5 yr old nephew that understands insurance. I do read an auto policy on occaision and believe there is an exclusion for work related incidents unless at the employers direction and using one’s own vehicle. This is stll a crappy decision.
Read the auto policy again with respect to the UM.UIM portion of the policy. Presenting a UM.UIM claim on your auto policy is considered a 3rd party claim and not a first party claim so don’t get that mixed up with the work related exclusion as that does not apply here. That exclusion might be used for 1st party coverage (collision, med pay, comp losses, etc.) I don’t see why this is a bad decision.
The guy gets hit by an uninsured motorist, the policy for the work vehicle does not have UIM.UM coverage so he makes a 3rd party claim on his personal auto policy (and if you read this portion of the policy you will note that there is coverage for this loss) and the carrier wrongly denied the claim. Yes, I understand the vehicle that was stolen was his but that doesn’t negate the fact that there was coverage on his own policy.
Oh and sorry for offending everyone with the no sh!t sherlock comment, didn’t realize everyone had such thin skin and no humor.
Ah, sarcasm will get you everywhere. Apparently, putting it in context, you were being humorous! Now I see it.