contracted? hired? you have to have a contract to charter a bus to a location, so that infact makes it a hired situation. so, why are the insurance company so worried about paying out? afterall it is in the language. did the contract state – all liabilities covered by the bus company and the university will not be held liable? Probably NOT! so, pay up and allow the families some relief.
This is why universities are an extremely hard risk to underwrite. I worked as an excess underwriter for about 6 years, and rarely would consider writing coverage for a university, especially without excluding H/NOA coverage. There are generally many employees doing many different things for a university, and the coverage is almost impossible to adequately rate for. I agree with Wayne in that I can’t believe this had to go to the Supreme Court to get decided.
I think this point is that there is a difference between a “hired” auto and an auto hired with a driver. It looks to me like the question is whether the university hired the bus with or without driver. Based on the facts presented herein, it was ambiguous. Of course, the decision was unreasonable and totally, utterly wrong. This is another case of judges deciding that the insurers should just pay then distorting reasonable policy language to fit their agenda without regard to the consequences.
Help me out a little on your point. How is he decision utterly wrong. The university did pay this company for the use of the vehicle. Renting a vehicle w/ or without operator is irrelevent. If I hire a limo to take a drunk patron home after a long night of drinking vs. taking that patron home, I can still be held liable for any incidents that occur. H/NOA coverage is well established and this is definitely a loss that should have been paid.
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.
contracted? hired? you have to have a contract to charter a bus to a location, so that infact makes it a hired situation. so, why are the insurance company so worried about paying out? afterall it is in the language. did the contract state – all liabilities covered by the bus company and the university will not be held liable? Probably NOT! so, pay up and allow the families some relief.
I can’t believe it took the Supreme Court of the state to decide this.
This is why universities are an extremely hard risk to underwrite. I worked as an excess underwriter for about 6 years, and rarely would consider writing coverage for a university, especially without excluding H/NOA coverage. There are generally many employees doing many different things for a university, and the coverage is almost impossible to adequately rate for. I agree with Wayne in that I can’t believe this had to go to the Supreme Court to get decided.
I think this point is that there is a difference between a “hired” auto and an auto hired with a driver. It looks to me like the question is whether the university hired the bus with or without driver. Based on the facts presented herein, it was ambiguous. Of course, the decision was unreasonable and totally, utterly wrong. This is another case of judges deciding that the insurers should just pay then distorting reasonable policy language to fit their agenda without regard to the consequences.
Mike from New Jersey,
Help me out a little on your point. How is he decision utterly wrong. The university did pay this company for the use of the vehicle. Renting a vehicle w/ or without operator is irrelevent. If I hire a limo to take a drunk patron home after a long night of drinking vs. taking that patron home, I can still be held liable for any incidents that occur. H/NOA coverage is well established and this is definitely a loss that should have been paid.