Somewhere in this chain the definition of “hostile fire” is going to come into play. And, if you look at that definition what happened in this case would not be covered. I’m afraid the insurnce company is right in its denial of this claim.
The “Proximate Cause” of the Loss is what should rule here. You can have smoke – but no fire – that is the uncovered pollutant.
The by-product of a severe fire is ensuing smoke and that is covered. There is a pollutant Exclusion in a lot of Property Policies which exclude smoke pollutants, etc… – but if there is a fire, all the direct physical damage caused by the fire is covered along with the ensuing smoke damage.
The issues in the instance of this case are no different.
I will move all my business from GA. This is wrong. I am sure they are asking for our tax paying dollars and are doing this crap. They should join the others at the FED prison!
(Regardless of the pollution exclusion), The liability here falls on the person who committed the arson, that is agreed. However, the Dr.’s policy will cover her as an insured (under the employee). So once again, not getting into the pollution/hostile fire portion, you folks that think the Dr.’s policy should not pay/defend, need to go back to your policies and look at the definition of an insured.
To the people who keep saying the owner of the building aren’t liable, I remember this fire because I’m from Houston. There was an issue with the fire suppression system in this building, and a question of if the fire alarms were working right.
The question isn’t in this case of whether or not the building owner holds liability or not, that has already been established.
Well, maybe the building owner and the Dr are one and the same, but I’m not reading it that way.
So, whether the nurse was an employee of the Doc, or not, doesn’t really matter – unless, they are the same.
The lawyers in the article are making the case that since the company that held the base $1 million of coverage for the building didn’t make the pollution arguement is unimportant as well. They are two different policies and may have different wording. Or, maybe they figued a million dollars wasn’t worth paying to defend and getting the same public backlash as we see now. But, for $24 million, it’s probably worth taking a stand.
I’m from the Houston area as well, OctOber. Now that you mention it, I think there was some concern over the fire protection system in the building. If I recall, I think it was something about the size of the building requiring less city inspections. If so, that in and of itself, does not translate to negligence on the part of the building owner, does it? Now, if an alarm or extinguisher didn’t work (I’m not sure of the facts) does that automatically mean the building owner is to blame? Maybe the equipment was faulty. A brand new fire extinguisher might not actually work, right?
Anyway, maybe it’s faulty news reporting, but I would think if that was the situation, the offensive legal team would be making that case loud and clear. Instead, they are simply saying the insurance company has stooped to a new low for using the legal contract they offered to the client – the building owner.
” Weaver admitted she set the fire to hide that she had not completed some paperwork on time for her boss, a cosmetic surgeon, and feared she might lose her job. ”
Some lazy imbecile doesn’t do her paperwork, so she burns down a building and kills people. Yet it is the fiscal responsibility of the property owner?
I think the “new low” of our society is blaming those with the deepest pockets rather than those who are actually responsible? After all, the most they’d ever get from the nurse is a used car, probably some credit card debt, and maybe some old fast food wrappers.
Smoke damage resulting from a fire is covered on the property side of the policy but this is third party coverage. Pollution liability exclusions don’t typically care what is the proximate cause or source of the pollution.
You have to keep in mind which part of the contract you are reading here.
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.
Somewhere in this chain the definition of “hostile fire” is going to come into play. And, if you look at that definition what happened in this case would not be covered. I’m afraid the insurnce company is right in its denial of this claim.
Always, always, always, request the Hostile Fire exception when faced with an Absolute Pollution Exclusion.
The “Proximate Cause” of the Loss is what should rule here. You can have smoke – but no fire – that is the uncovered pollutant.
The by-product of a severe fire is ensuing smoke and that is covered. There is a pollutant Exclusion in a lot of Property Policies which exclude smoke pollutants, etc… – but if there is a fire, all the direct physical damage caused by the fire is covered along with the ensuing smoke damage.
The issues in the instance of this case are no different.
The Proximate Cause is key BUT did the building owner contribute to the death of the claimants.
Answer: NO
Question – Where is the liability on the building owners part??
Answer: There is None (unless of course the building was in violation of known fire & safety building codes).
Why even bring up a Pollutant Exclusion??
It really doesn’t apply.
The Insurance Company will prevail.
I will move all my business from GA. This is wrong. I am sure they are asking for our tax paying dollars and are doing this crap. They should join the others at the FED prison!
(Regardless of the pollution exclusion), The liability here falls on the person who committed the arson, that is agreed. However, the Dr.’s policy will cover her as an insured (under the employee). So once again, not getting into the pollution/hostile fire portion, you folks that think the Dr.’s policy should not pay/defend, need to go back to your policies and look at the definition of an insured.
To the people who keep saying the owner of the building aren’t liable, I remember this fire because I’m from Houston. There was an issue with the fire suppression system in this building, and a question of if the fire alarms were working right.
The question isn’t in this case of whether or not the building owner holds liability or not, that has already been established.
Well, maybe the building owner and the Dr are one and the same, but I’m not reading it that way.
So, whether the nurse was an employee of the Doc, or not, doesn’t really matter – unless, they are the same.
The lawyers in the article are making the case that since the company that held the base $1 million of coverage for the building didn’t make the pollution arguement is unimportant as well. They are two different policies and may have different wording. Or, maybe they figued a million dollars wasn’t worth paying to defend and getting the same public backlash as we see now. But, for $24 million, it’s probably worth taking a stand.
I’m from the Houston area as well, OctOber. Now that you mention it, I think there was some concern over the fire protection system in the building. If I recall, I think it was something about the size of the building requiring less city inspections. If so, that in and of itself, does not translate to negligence on the part of the building owner, does it? Now, if an alarm or extinguisher didn’t work (I’m not sure of the facts) does that automatically mean the building owner is to blame? Maybe the equipment was faulty. A brand new fire extinguisher might not actually work, right?
Anyway, maybe it’s faulty news reporting, but I would think if that was the situation, the offensive legal team would be making that case loud and clear. Instead, they are simply saying the insurance company has stooped to a new low for using the legal contract they offered to the client – the building owner.
” Weaver admitted she set the fire to hide that she had not completed some paperwork on time for her boss, a cosmetic surgeon, and feared she might lose her job. ”
Some lazy imbecile doesn’t do her paperwork, so she burns down a building and kills people. Yet it is the fiscal responsibility of the property owner?
I think the “new low” of our society is blaming those with the deepest pockets rather than those who are actually responsible? After all, the most they’d ever get from the nurse is a used car, probably some credit card debt, and maybe some old fast food wrappers.
Shame, shame, shame on our litigious society.
Smoke damage resulting from a fire is covered on the property side of the policy but this is third party coverage. Pollution liability exclusions don’t typically care what is the proximate cause or source of the pollution.
You have to keep in mind which part of the contract you are reading here.