| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wberg
USA
6 Posts |
 Posted - 04/04/2003 : 08:36:07
|
I am new to this forum and would like some help from the fellow members in understanding the liability section of the standard HO-3, 4/91 edition policy.
To start off with, how is "liable" and "slander" covered under this section? I've read through it and cannot find a reference to this or should I pose a specific question? |
|
|
tomgriffin56
USA
88 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2003 : 13:12:05
|
first thing is to get a dictionary and look up "libel" and "liable" |
 |
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2003 : 17:11:41
|
Why don't you describe your real question, i.e. your situation, and then let us respond to you whether there is coverage using policy language to show whether there is or there 'ain't'!
Actions of libel or slander consist of a trial in two parts. The first part to establish whether there was in fact libel or slander, and the second part which follows a positive finding on the first part, then determines whether there are damages. Even if one party slanders or libels another party, there is no monetary benefit to the aggrieved party, unless actual financial damages can be shown and proven in a court of law.
It would be almost impossible to address a hypothetical problem without knowing more details, including whether the defendant party has insurance, and if so, what type and under what form.
Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Catmandale
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2003 : 22:04:29
|
William,
In the HO3 0491 ISO policy, Section II - Liability Coverage is meant to address property damage or bodily injury. Libel or slander is a personal injury rather than the above. Review the "definitions" section in the front of your policy.
Umbrella or other policy types may afford coverage for personal injury. Some policies may have endorsements adding PI, but I can't say I know of any off hand.
Dale Strain |
"When we thought that we had all the answers,
suddenly all the questions changed."
Mario Benedetti (1920); Uruguayan writer.
|
Edited by - Catmandale on 04/04/2003 22:06:50 |
|
|
|
Catmandale
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2003 : 22:09:52
|
FYI-
Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel refers to statements in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to verbal statements and gestures. The term defamation encompasses both libel and slander.
|
"When we thought that we had all the answers,
suddenly all the questions changed."
Mario Benedetti (1920); Uruguayan writer.
|
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2003 : 10:01:53
|
Most libel or slander cases would fall under "Implied Exceptions", which are intentionally caused by the insured. Not being aware of the truth is not a defense.
This may never come up with an adjuster because there is no visable damage to assess. We deal in property and casualty type claims, the libel and slander is a legal claim which are settltd by arbitration or the courts. This is my oppinion, and by no means the way it may play out.
This is one of those nice to know things in insurance, I would like to know more on the subject. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2003 : 11:18:34
|
Newt, you are paddling against the established current in this liability creek.
Many insurers write or incorporate libel or slander coverage, into their casualty books and wordings. There are a lot of adjusters who investigate and handle these types of claims.
It is a fascinating field of coverage and investigation, but it is a lot more than "nice to know" to many carriers and adjusters. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2003 : 11:26:51
|
Cuzin' Newt, just to clear up a couple of comments within your post, I would remind the reader that "casualty type claims" and liability type claims are one and the same.
Simple rule to remember:
Liability insurance = Casualty insurance.
Casualty insurance = Liability insurance.
While in a sense you may be somewhat correct in some circumstances that there is no "visible damage to assess" by an adjuster (under casualty insurance), those damages from liability are measurable.
Now if Ghostbuster is driving home drunk from the Elks Lodge one night with a couple of the CNN Babes in his lap, and runs across the yellow line right smack dab head-on into your car, and busts up your body into more pieces than you started with, that damage may well be both visible AND measurable.
I would remind you as well, that damage visibility by the unassisted human eye does not equal no damage. An X-ray of the broken bones within a human body immediately comes to mind as only one example.
It is because and when a liability claim first becomes measurable or visible, that a liability adjuster first handles the claim. Should the liability adjuster fail to reach an acceptable settlement with a third party, that is when the "legal claim" (which you mention) then proceeds to court.
Legal claims can arise from contract law, from criminal law and from the law of torts. It is from the law of torts that liability (casualty as you call it) claims arise and which trigger adjuster and carrier involvement in liability resolution.
There are elements of libel and slander which are indeed covered under insurance policies, and the fact of whether or not a speaker or writer is unaware of "the truth" may have little or no bearing on the outcome of resolution of a liability claim/legal claim. Bear in mind if you will, that truth is a defense for slander and libel, and your comment is valid when a party makes a statement or publishes to media a slanderous or libelous remark knowing such remark is false.
Finally, under those insurance policies which provide coverage for slander and libel, even if an act was intentional, there may still be a carrier obligation to defend despite a carrier not having any obligation to pay for resulting damages. And it is that obligation to defend which can become quite costly as measured in dollars.
I hope this helps somewhat in your understanding of liability/casualty practice.
When I can find some 'extra time' I will try to return to this thread with some clear examples where coverages may be found and established as well as proffering a couple of real world scenarios. It really isn't as simple as you may think. |
Edited by - JimF on 04/05/2003 11:37:18 |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2003 : 18:23:40
|
| That was great Cuz, I didn't have that information, or didn't know where to find it. I'll keep digging until I get it located. We never discuss the subject of libel or slander before so it is a new one on me. Thanks again and a special thanks to William for bringing it up. Way to go! |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2003 : 00:52:38
|
Cuzin Newt, since you like to read and research insurance policies in your intensity to learn, why don't you do a little research and then come back and tell us what is generally covered by the Liability Section of the homeowners insurance policy.
Suppose you are out on a property claim with the homeowner and they ask you: "Newt, just what kinds of liability does my HO-3 cover?" How would you answer the homeowner?
Or if that same homeowner asked you: "Newt, why would an insurance company provide liability coverage in a property form insurance policy?" What would your response be?
Think and respond back to us in the broadest possible way, and let's see if working together in reviewing the HO policy, we can't find out some of the answers that you and the original poster may be seeking.
It might also be helpful to you in your learning process, as well as William in the understanding process, if you could also research and then explain the following liability concepts which become integral to an understanding of liability adjusting:
Liability
Negligence
Tort
Newt, as a youngster in the claims process, are you up for the challenge?
|
Edited by - JimF on 04/06/2003 02:02:19 |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2003 : 17:28:14
|
Ok, I'll give it a shot, trying to adjust the damages, but I know nothing about the determination of libel or slander. The Tort determination would be determined by the carrier after we assess the damage caused and the tort preceeding the claim. I will give you a detailed explaination after I study the HO and others. I do know that most times you will be dealing with a lawyer in slander cases and this makes it imperitive that you know the policy or your EO Insurance could be called on to bail you out.
This will give me something to do today. I will call this home work for the day and check back tomorrow hopefully with some answers. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2003 : 19:15:06
|
Newt, Thanks for your response back to my request.
Now, let me see if I can steer you ever so gently back into liability mode and the liability adjusting process.
"Tort determination" as you have used the expression, actually would be determined generally by the handling adjuster. Obviously if a claim completely out of bounds for liability coverage was made, that likely would be pointed out to the insured at the time of reporting the claim to the agent and/or carrier.
Liability adjusters normally don't just investigate liability claims and then report back to the carrier without a recommendation. The liability process is somewhat different than the property claims process in that it would not be unusual for a liability claim to remain open for period of up to two or three years, and in a complicated liability claim even for 7 to 10 or even 15 years.
Liability adjusting is also different in the sense that an adjuster must know what constitutes liability, negligence, and the laws of tort.
To refresh your memory, a tort is a "civil wrong", or more explicitly, a tort is a duty owed, plus a duty breached, plus proximate cause, plus damages which also equals negligence. While that may sound simple on the surface, each of the various components have differing degrees of measurement which effect whether there is a tort or not. As an example, I do not owe the same duties to a trespasser on my property as I would to an invited guest.
From a damages standpoint, an accident which scars the face of a young woman has a different value than the same accident which causes cosmetic damage to an older woman. And a 'beautiful' woman is owed more for cosmetic damage than a plain Jane. You may not like that, but the reality is, that is the way that liability insurance works.
What I am really trying to say to you, is that the answers you seek to find regarding the nuances of liability coverage are going to be found in a law school casebook on torts and not within a particular insurance policy, in a general kind of way.
The risks that we as individuals and as individual homeowners take or undertake through our lives and activities is vast and almost unlimited with regard to liability exposures. An insurance policy would have to be written such as to consist of volumes were that policy to delineate each and every act or event which might be covered or might be excluded.
That is why, it is not only important but imperative, that you or anyone else wanting to understand or handle liabilty claims, must have a greater knowledge of law and of torts, than of the liability policy itself.
Slander and libel are actually pretty simple concepts to grasp relative to other liability exposures and events which do occur with claims made against insurance policies.
Did an insured say or publish something about another individual or entity which was false (whether such was done knowingly or not) and which caused "damage" to that individual? That in a nutshell is what constitutes the first test of slander (spoken defamation) and/or libel ("published" defamation). If the answer is yes, then as I mentioned before, the second test is whether there were damages which are "measurable". If there are measurable damages the aggrieved party is due remuneration and if not, then no damages are due, despite the tort.
One of the primary reasons that insureds manage risk by buying a liability policy or property policy with liability extensions, is for the guarantee of legal representation by the carrier should a claim be made. A simple slander case with minimal damages might have a settlement value of a few thousand dollars while the cost to defend such an action could well be in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. So what I am saying, is that perhaps the greater benefit that individuals seek in procuring liability insurance is the transfer of the cost to defend rather than restitution for payment for actual damages.
In the end, finally what I am saying, is that you are not really going to find all that many of the answers you and the original poster asked for within the homeowners insurance policy, and I did not want you to waste valuable time in frustration when you need obviously to look to textbooks on tort as a beginning.
While it may seem strange to you as a property adjuster, the tort casebooks and textbooks are really the 'primers' where liability adjusters first begin to build their foundation of knowledge to handle these interesting, challenging and often complex claims.
I hope this helps. |
Edited by - JimF on 04/06/2003 19:33:18 |
|
|
|
wberg
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 16:17:11
|
First of all let me thank all of you for the responses. "Thank-you".
This message has been edited due to content. Again, thank all of you for your help and my most sincere thanks to the originator of this site, there is nothing like it anywhere. |
Edited by - wberg on 04/10/2003 11:49:49 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 16:52:43
|
Bill, this is quite a mess indeed.
I see two issues.
(1) the "misappropriation" of your checks, which if the 'done deed' was enacted like you describe it - is forgery; and perhaps one or more other crimial acts.
(2) the spoken defamation of your company - slander, as described in Jim's commentary.
First, do you have a commercial package policy for your business? Does it contain crime coverages? If so, refer to any forgery coverage that may be available. I would also get the bank that honored those checks involved. If the checks were made out to "ABCD" company, and deposited to an account named "ABC" company, as you say a similar named company; the bank that took those commercial checks has some explaining to do. The police will likely also have to be involved. Whatever insurance your former subcontractor may have - commercial or personal - will be of no relief to you; due to this issue appearing to be an intentional act on his behalf.
Second, in regards to the alleged slander, no insurance policy that you may have will be of any benefit for this situation. Any personal homeowners policy that your subcontractor may have will not be a 'deep pocket' source for any relief to you; as this was an action related to business, among other excluded or not covered reasons. If the subcontractor has a commercial policy with broad liability coverage extensions, there may be a 'deep pocket' source of relief; if damages resulted. However, you will never know that until you make appropriate demands and claims against the subcontractor, and then see how he or whom responds to those demands.
It is a dusty trail ahead of you Bill, to rectify the two issues. |
|
|
|
wberg
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2003 : 11:45:05
|
Mr. Carr, thank-you for your help in resolving this issue for me, I now have an understanding of this issue. You saved me some time and frustrations.
At present and for several weeks now, detectives from both the banks and carriers have been processing their paperwork for criminal charges and refunds. |
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Liability Issues
Forum Locked
