This is a new low for the insurance industry. Pollution caused the deaths? What caused the pollution? Seems to me it was the fire. I guess this company is not concerned about their public image.
Maybe it about time the insurance industry stands up for itself. I’m sorry someone was killed but the woman that set the fire should be liable. The doctor she worked should not be liable for her actions. She committed a felony. She broke the law. She stands alone on this one but courts have made ruling in the past that really in effect make no one liable for their actions. It is a slim shot for the insurance company to take this stance but they are going to be out sums of money either way.
I hope they win this one and give other companies the fortitude to take a stand and quit rolling over. Lets get back to the reality of letting those that do the wrongs be responsible for their actions.
The problem is not the issue of insurance should not be liable under the circumstances – if that was the argument of the insurance company – than OK. But to deny based on pollution exclusion is a new low. I guess the policy does not have an exception for Hostile fire?? The loss is fire – and the courts have to deal with liability – which is the real problem
I’m going to have to agree with Jack on this one. Who was actually negligent here. I don’t see how it could be the building owner or the woman’s employer. So, why should Boxer Properties or their insurer be responsible for the law suit. In fact, they should be subrogating to recover their losses due to the property loss. It all boils down to a search for deep pockets.
What ever happened to Proximate cause?
The proximate cause of an event in that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new cause, produced that event, and without which that event would not have happened.
arrson would have been the cause and the policy normally provied coverage
Look, the Building owner did not start the fire the made the smoke that may have resulted in pollution (wow, what a stretch). So why would they be a target of a suite for these damages. The obvious answer is they appear to be able to come up with big money. It’s Wrong. The woman who started the fire should be the only target because she is the only negligent party.
There are two separate things being argued here. Is the employer or the building owner liable for the criminal actions of another? He** no and argue/defend that. Should the Great American make this weak argument to avoid defense cost? Probably not but make the loss circumstances a little less tragic and you may change your mind.
BTW, the pollution exclusion probably has language exempting proximate cause arguments. Remember this is a third-party loss, not a first-party.
Word on the street is that they had an absolute pollution exclusion, which, among other things, deletes the hostile fire exception. Someone posted something about the fire that made the smoke that caused the pollution.
If you read the ISO definition of pollution, smoke IS pollution. Smoke does not cause pollution.
If the bodies of the victims were burned, then that’s one thing, but if they died due to smoke inhalation, then I’d say that Great American SHOULD have a case.
Not a popular position socially, but contractually it is a sound argument.
Let’s not forget that the insured purchased the coverage with an absolute pollution exclusion of his own free will. He likely had several options on the table and chose the cheapest one.
To the people that say the carrier is scum and is wrong, READ the ISO CGL form, then read the ISO absolute pollution exclusion. It’s there in black & white.
Come on – if someone set you house on fire, would you submit a claim to your homeowner’s carrier or just try to recoup your losses from the guy who set the fire? If you’re hit by an uninsured motorist would you go after the drive or expect coverage from your carrier? – assuming you purchased uninsured motorist coverage which I hope you do. Great American’s stance on this is ridiculous and, barring some weird judge, the case should be dismissed with prejudice quickly.
This is NOT an Uninsured Motorist case. It was a fire. The company has paid the fire damage. Now, somebody that was hurt by the fire that the nurse caused, wants the location to pay the damages. That’s like asking the owner of a store to pay the damages caused by an accident in their parking lot.
Now, our court system has been abused by plaintiffs and foul judges for many years, and in so doing, these kind of cases now sound legitimate. Poppycock!
If their liability policy excludes damages caused by smoke, then the damages should be excluded. End of conversation.
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 a new low for the insurance industry. Pollution caused the deaths? What caused the pollution? Seems to me it was the fire. I guess this company is not concerned about their public image.
Maybe it about time the insurance industry stands up for itself. I’m sorry someone was killed but the woman that set the fire should be liable. The doctor she worked should not be liable for her actions. She committed a felony. She broke the law. She stands alone on this one but courts have made ruling in the past that really in effect make no one liable for their actions. It is a slim shot for the insurance company to take this stance but they are going to be out sums of money either way.
I hope they win this one and give other companies the fortitude to take a stand and quit rolling over. Lets get back to the reality of letting those that do the wrongs be responsible for their actions.
The problem is not the issue of insurance should not be liable under the circumstances – if that was the argument of the insurance company – than OK. But to deny based on pollution exclusion is a new low. I guess the policy does not have an exception for Hostile fire?? The loss is fire – and the courts have to deal with liability – which is the real problem
I’m going to have to agree with Jack on this one. Who was actually negligent here. I don’t see how it could be the building owner or the woman’s employer. So, why should Boxer Properties or their insurer be responsible for the law suit. In fact, they should be subrogating to recover their losses due to the property loss. It all boils down to a search for deep pockets.
What ever happened to Proximate cause?
The proximate cause of an event in that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new cause, produced that event, and without which that event would not have happened.
arrson would have been the cause and the policy normally provied coverage
Look, the Building owner did not start the fire the made the smoke that may have resulted in pollution (wow, what a stretch). So why would they be a target of a suite for these damages. The obvious answer is they appear to be able to come up with big money. It’s Wrong. The woman who started the fire should be the only target because she is the only negligent party.
There are two separate things being argued here. Is the employer or the building owner liable for the criminal actions of another? He** no and argue/defend that. Should the Great American make this weak argument to avoid defense cost? Probably not but make the loss circumstances a little less tragic and you may change your mind.
BTW, the pollution exclusion probably has language exempting proximate cause arguments. Remember this is a third-party loss, not a first-party.
Word on the street is that they had an absolute pollution exclusion, which, among other things, deletes the hostile fire exception. Someone posted something about the fire that made the smoke that caused the pollution.
If you read the ISO definition of pollution, smoke IS pollution. Smoke does not cause pollution.
If the bodies of the victims were burned, then that’s one thing, but if they died due to smoke inhalation, then I’d say that Great American SHOULD have a case.
Not a popular position socially, but contractually it is a sound argument.
Let’s not forget that the insured purchased the coverage with an absolute pollution exclusion of his own free will. He likely had several options on the table and chose the cheapest one.
To the people that say the carrier is scum and is wrong, READ the ISO CGL form, then read the ISO absolute pollution exclusion. It’s there in black & white.
Come on – if someone set you house on fire, would you submit a claim to your homeowner’s carrier or just try to recoup your losses from the guy who set the fire? If you’re hit by an uninsured motorist would you go after the drive or expect coverage from your carrier? – assuming you purchased uninsured motorist coverage which I hope you do. Great American’s stance on this is ridiculous and, barring some weird judge, the case should be dismissed with prejudice quickly.
Blaze,
This is NOT an Uninsured Motorist case. It was a fire. The company has paid the fire damage. Now, somebody that was hurt by the fire that the nurse caused, wants the location to pay the damages. That’s like asking the owner of a store to pay the damages caused by an accident in their parking lot.
Now, our court system has been abused by plaintiffs and foul judges for many years, and in so doing, these kind of cases now sound legitimate. Poppycock!
If their liability policy excludes damages caused by smoke, then the damages should be excluded. End of conversation.