| Author |
Message |
Kile Anderson
Registered User
Username: Kileanderson
Post Number: 147
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 17, 2002 - 9:36 pm: | |
I think the cause of loss would be sudden deceleration due to contacting the planet Earth after being accelerated towards said planet by the very weak natural force of gravity. Is gravity a named peril? |
Darryl Martin
Registered User
Username: Darryl
Post Number: 7
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 17, 2002 - 5:40 pm: | |
I see a lot about "aircraft", no one has taken on the falling objects and whether the falling object itself is covered. Hmmmmm! |
mike stephenson
Registered User
Username: Photoadjuster
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 3:09 pm: | |
There is no coverage.
I would first check to see if the insured had a personal articles endorsement.
If so, most read under Special Exclusions:- Sports equipment - This policy does not cover breakage, marring, scratching, tearing, or denting unless caused by fire or theft. ( taken from the State Farm National endorsement FP-7940-2)
If there is no personal articles endorsement, there is no coverage based on the Property Not Covered section of the Texas HO-B policy that reads:
"We do not cover:
5. aircraft meaning any device used or designed for flight, except model or hobby aircraft . . .
A kite is not a model aircraft nor a hobby aircraft.
Regards, Mike Stephenson |
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 297
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 7:00 am: | |
Interestingly, the kite loss would be specifically excluded under the FWUA Dwelling Policy which wisely contains the following exclusion:
"We do not cover:
l. Personal property while airborne, waterborne, or in transit;" |
Roy Cupps
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 130
Registered: 1-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 3:14 am: | |
Bulletin Board Transfer, Posted by Darryl 5/13/2002 11:33:21 AM
Jim
A few comments to push this forward. As you can tell by our newsletter we like puzzelers.
In reviewing form DP 00 03 07 88 there are several places one might look to try and make this determination. Under Coverage C items usual to the occupancy as a dwelling while it is on the described location is one.
Property not covered...aircraft might be another. 10% worldwide coverage, possibly. Perils insured against another spot and falling objects is also interesting.
I have my opinion, and we all know what opinions are worth, and await further discussion and will share mine a little later.
CatAdjuster.org An Adjuster to Adjuster Community
|
Chuck Deaton
Member
Username: Chuckdeaton
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 12:02 am: | |
If kites interest you find plans for a "Scottish Sled" design and try it. |
Cecil Kraft
Registered User
Username: Cecil
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 11:16 pm: | |
No coverage. Did "windstorm" cause the damage? It was flying, it's intended purpose. Due to latent defect (not built properly etc) or neglect (lack of skill?) by the operator it plummeted to the ground, zap.
In the question, it does not say windstorm etc caused the loss. |
D Wong Whey
Registered User
Username: Dwongwhey
Post Number: 133
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 10:37 pm: | |
Steve where did you find your languuage: "A kite flying outside in the sky is in it's designed envirorment. Any damage caused by "friendly wind" will be excluded." ?
|
Steve Florig
Registered User
Username: Sflorig
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 9:47 pm: | |
Let's spin this another way:
Please read your policies very carefully. I mean the very fine print.
"A kite flying outside in the sky is in it's designed envirorment. Any damage caused by "friendly wind" will be excluded."
It therefore appears that coverage for this loss is denied.
How's that for an opposing view???
|
Five Daily
Registered User
Username: Kitchenista
Post Number: 11
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 5:23 pm: | |
I can't imagine an insurance company trying to deny this type of claim because the insured did not take due diligence to prevent dmg (ie flying his kite in high winds). I kind of think the point of kites is to be able to amuse oneself with the high winds.
Jennifer |
D Wong Whey
Registered User
Username: Dwongwhey
Post Number: 132
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 9:50 am: | |
Mark, do you suppose that if Junior doesn't fly his kite when the wind is blowing, it would be considered passing (on) wind? |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 273
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 9:35 am: | |
Olderthendirt, there just ain't no 'Stupidity Clause' in the policy. Tho, at times, we could sure use one. |
mark salmon
Registered User
Username: Olderthendirt
Post Number: 180
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 9:37 pm: | |
It seems to me that windstorm is the key, was the insured flying his kite in a windstorm? If he was is that neglect of an insured to use all reasonable means to protect covered property at the time of the loss. We have lot's of adjusters who can figure how to deny a loss, let's here from you. |
mark salmon
Registered User
Username: Olderthendirt
Post Number: 179
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 9:37 pm: | |
It seems to me that windstorm is the key, was the insered flying his kite in a windstorm? If he was is that neglect of an insured to use all reasonable means to protect covered property at the time of the loss. We have lot's of adjusters who can figure how to deny a loss, let's here from you. |
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 293
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 2:37 pm: | |
I agree with all that it would seem that there is coverage for this loss as I cannot find any exclusions which would take away coverage.
The kite does not meet the definition of an "airplane" as defined by the typical insurance policy and I agree it should be treated as a toy.
(I also liked Steve Florig's idea of having the damaged kite run over with an automobile just to be on the safe side.)
Little did I know when I posted this question, how high the prices can be for some kites. After searching the Internet, I found several kite websites with kites as expensive as $1,900.00.
And to think when we were kids we amused ourselves by playing kick the tin can. |
Steve Florig
Registered User
Username: Sflorig
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 12:31 pm: | |
If wind actually caused the kite to fall and/or damaged it, then I say it is covered under the named peril of wind.
If the kite just fell out of the sky, then I say no it is not covered just as a laptop or a camera being dropped or falling off a table is NOT covered as there is no named peril for a UPP item falling (unless it is scheduled making it all risk).
To be fair to the insured, I say we give him the benefit of the doubt that loss was caused by wind and pay the claim and move on.
Location makes no difference as the policy provides UPP coverage anywhere in the world.
A kite probaly does fit in to the broad definition of "aircraft" provided by Miriam-Webster which is "a vehicle for travelling through air", however I don't think the intent of the policy is to exclude a kite (a toy more or less) from coverage.
I would suggest to the insured to be sure that the kite is covered that once the kite hits the ground that the insured run over it with his car and then we have coverage under the named peril of vehicle damage. |
Five Daily
Registered User
Username: Kitchenista
Post Number: 9
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 12:29 pm: | |
Note about the aircraft questions:
As I read the "Property We Do Not Cover Under Coverage C" section, the aircraft exclusion says:
"Aircraft & aircraft parts. This does not include model or hobby craft not designed to carry people or cargo."
I'm not sure why you asked, but I do not think a kite would be considered "aircraft."
A question of my own: Does it make a difference in a coverage decision where the kite was being flown if it is owned by an insured(or his minor child)?
Jennifer
|
Kelly Cooper
Registered User
Username: Kjmcooper
Post Number: 6
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 11:08 am: | |
Where is he flying this kite? In the Insured's yard? or at a park? |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 271
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 10:54 pm: | |
Can a kite be considered an 'aircraft'? |
Five Daily
Registered User
Username: Kitchenista
Post Number: 8
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 4:27 pm: | |
After a brief review of the scenario and policy, I believe there is coverage for this loss. Windstorm is a covered peril for contents and I can find no exclusion that I would apply. If a windstorm had blown a patio table over and broken the glass top, that would be covered, and I am not sure this is anything different.
As I have recently mentioned though, I still consider myself a newbie and would love to hear if anyone else has a different opinion and why.
(On a side note, what is he doing buying a $250 kite?! Is he a a professional kiter?)
Jennifer |
Roy Cupps
Registered User
Username: Roy
Post Number: 24
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 11:28 am: | |
Bulletin Board Transfer, posted by Jim on 5/10/02
George buys his son Junior a fancy schmanzy $250.00 kite to fly outside.
George has an HO-3 policy with a $100.00 deductible and $60,000.00 UPP Coverage.
Junior is outside flying his kite in the wind, when the kite suddenly flips upside down and then crashes into the ground, totally destroying the kite.
George files a claim for coverage from wind damage to the $250.00 kite and demands the carrier pay him $150.00 for his portion of the loss.
You are assigned to handle the claim as the loss adjuster.
Is there coverage for this loss? Why or why not? |
