| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Admin
547 Posts |
 Posted - 01/07/2003 : 19:50:12
|
I guess we lost one the most recent topics. The one about the HO-3 and the Model Airplane. To the author, Newt and to all visitors I apologize for this error. If anyone saved any of the posts and can repost please do so or you may send me what you have and I will do it.
|
Roy Cupps -
CatAdjuster.org :: Contact\Feedback :: Adjuster Roster :: Current Forum |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 19:57:38
|
| Well, I do know that mysterious disappearance is not covered. |
 |
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 06:30:35
|
HO 3 03 10 00/MODEL Airplane
Insured is flying his large model airplane, it strikes a power line.
It crashes into the rear glass of the neighbors car.
Damage to Car; $485.00
Damage to model; $630.00
Deductable; $250.00
A. Is the neighbors car covered?
B. Is the model airplane covered?
C. Loss settlement for neighbors car?
D. Loss settlement for model airplane?
My answers are as follows which are open for debate:
A. The vehicle is excluded, property is not. This is defined in section II Exclusions A.motor vehicle liability ..1.Coverages Eand F do not apply to any motor vehicle liability. ( I think this is in ref. to an auto owned by the insured.)
On down to par. 2 d. 1 Not owned by insured (then exclusion A1 does not apply.} (this is what I understand)
I would submit the report just as you would for any "damage property of others claim", quoting the policy language In sec II A2d1. The carrier may or may not make the same conclusion.
B. The insureds statement is all you have to go on this, this is the key. If the cause was not a covered peril, then you are obligated to reject the claim. If his statement is that it was a covered peril, then I would get a written statement signed by the insured as to what happened.
This takes the adjuster off the hook. Document, Document, Document, what you believe the carrier may not. The statement and documentation will let the carrier know you made an effort to do it right.
C. The neighbor would be paid $485.00 if the carrier approves the claim
D. If covered by a peril, pay the claim less $250.00 deductable. $380.00
If there was no covered peril, I would deny the claim. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 06:36:35
|
Newt where in the heck are you finding $485.00 for a neighbor's automobile damage under a homeowners policy?
Please explain. |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 06:40:14
|
| This is what I remember of this subject, it may not be exact. Computer glitches are not a covered peril. |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 07:43:05
|
SECTION II- EXCLUSIONS A. "Motor Vehicle Liability" 2. d. (1)
And the coverage under personal liability SECII A.
The wording of this policy seems to imply that the policy is not a replacement or substitute for Auto Liability Insurance.
I would consider the property of others to include lawn furniture,mowers,anything belonging to the neighbor or others including autos on his property. I know that autos are excluded in
coverage "C". But I don't understand or get that meaning in Personal liability.
The reason I brought this up, it is about as clear as mud. I appreciate your effort in helping on this and what I think may be wrong. The way I would handle the claim right now may be wrong, so better to iron it out before. |
|
|
|
Ron McGuire
7 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 22:49:56
|
Newt, The model airplane is not an aircraft anymore then your Grandson's new remote controlled car is an "automobile". They are toys, they are personal property, they are covered property. Most Homeowner's policies provide onle "NAMED PERILS" coverage for personal property. As I recall the original story, the adjuster might be hard pressed to pin a peril on hitting the power line.
In section II , the company agrees to pay any claims for which the Insured becomes legally liable. There are exclusions, but I fail to see any on the neighbors auto. I checked my own Texas HO-B and the standard HO-3, used by the rest of the U.S. I see no reason not to pay the neighbors claim. It also is covered under the "DAMAGE TO PROPERTY OF OTHERS" section. |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 05:44:29
|
| Ron, The only hold back on the hobby craft is if it was a covered peril, and if it was anaccident under one of the covered perils of course it would be paid. If it was a mechanical failure or operator error it would not be covered under the ISO. IMHO |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 18:11:27
|
Linda brought up a point and I think it should be aired out?
Would the "falling object" coverage be considered in this claim?
|
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 18:19:38
|
Newt why don't you do a little policy reading and research and then tell us what YOU think.
It's a great way to learn and might keep you out of Clayton's hair for a little while (I don't have any). |
Edited by - JimF on 01/09/2003 18:20:54 |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 18:52:24
|
Section I PERIL INSURED AGAINST B . Coverage C.- Personal property 10. Falling Objects
This covered peril is for a falling object that damages personal property by entering the wall or roof. Damage to the falling object itself is not covered. |
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 18:54:09
|
My last two FireBird XL electric model planes where taken away by the wind while flying but they cost less than my deductible. They say if you will put your name and phone number on them often people will call you if they find the plane. I did not have my contact info on my planes because of a mule story.
Back in the 40’s or 50’s a local farmer (Leon) and also the owner of the local country general merchandise store had a mule that got out in the road and a stranger passing though hit the mule dead center in the side and scooped the mule up on his hood killing the mule. The stranger drives up to the store and starts asking if the guys sitting around the store can tell him who the mule belonged to.
Well the guys including Leon go out and look at the mule and the damaged car and mad driver. Leon says if it was anyone’s locally it must have belonged to someone that had just recently traded for it because he did not know anyone with a mule that looked like that mule and the rest of the guys agreed with Leon.
According to the long since deceased farmer relaying this story to me the stranger drove off with the mule still on the hood looking for its owner. That was at Tri-City.
At Lynnville about 3 miles down the road when I was still in high school (60’s) two old farmers ran over one another and knocked down a gas pump and it almost killed both of them. Neither one had driver licenses or insurance. Well that is enough from rural America and covered/uncovered losses.
|
Edited by - Gale on 01/09/2003 18:55:33 |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2003 : 05:11:03
|
I feel a little better this morning, I get one of these head colds once a year and it usually lasts about 24 hours but this hung on for three days.
Back to the topic, of the model airplane and the peril of the falling object.
The falling object as a peril is very short and to the point.
If the model plane had struck the house, say the roof and it leaked, there would be coverage on the roof and contents, the falling object its self would not be covered under this peril.
In other words the model could only be covered under another peril. Two perils would have to be named for coverage on both.
|
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2003 : 11:51:45
|
'Model Airplane ReDux'
It is too bad we lost the guts of this interesting thread. However, Newt reconstructed the 'scene' fairly good on Jan 8th.
I remember giving an opinion - utilizing coverage wording - which hopefully set out that the model airplane was personal property. I originally suggested that the scenario presented with would not provide coverage for the model airplane due to the limiting named perils available. However, I later conceded that if in fact I was presented with a woeful story of windstorm or lightning causing the model to fall to the power line and then to neighbour's car, that those perils would provide coverage for the piece of personal property - the model airplane.
I then went on to give an opinion that the damage to the neighbour's automobile would be covered - in this scenario - under the model airplane owner's HO3 liability coverage; specifically the "Damage to Property of Others" area, which I refer to as 'voluntary property damage'. James felt otherwise regarding the liability issue - solely due to the damaged third party property being an automobile; and if I recall correctly Russ didn't think the model airplane was personal property.
In the meantime, Newt advanced the 'falling object' peril, and in time realized that the simple nature of that peril's wording would not provide any relief to this situation.
Finally I recall saying I was going to consider Jim's comments regarding liability and that I would have another look at the wording, and either come back spitting blanks or shooting bullets of coverage.
So, 'bang, bang', out from my policy pistol still comes pellets of coverage; regarding this scenario and the "Damage to Property of Others" in the liability section of the HO3 policy.
I have had another look through Section I of the policy, but it wasn't really necessary for the purposes of this Section II issue.
I have studied Section II again. The word 'automobile' first comes up in Section II - Exclusions, "(f)(1) arising out of - the ownership, maintenance, use .... of motor vehicles .... owned / operated by or rented or loaned to an insured." I think we can all agree, that the 'neighbour's vehicle' in Newt's scenario does not attach to that exclusion, nor would "(f)(2) .... the entrustment by an 'insured' of a motor vehicle .... to any person ....". That did it for the word 'automobile / motor vehicle' in the Section II - Exclusions.
Now, at Section II - Additional Conditions, the words 'automobile / motor vehicle' are not found, and it is in this section that the "Damage to Property of Others" is found; and where I believe coverage is available for the incident described and the resultant damage to the neighbour's car.
Now at Section II - Conditions, I see no mention of the word 'automobile'.
Now to the last section, Section I and II - Conditions, I see no mention of the word 'automobile'.
Therefore, I must still conclude, that given the scenario we were presented with, there would be coverage for the neighbour's car in Section II - Additional Conditions - "Damage to Property of Others".
Go back to the exclusions I noted (f1&2) in Section II - Exclusions. They are the basis for excluding any liability coverage for any third party damage caused by an automobile used or directed (etc) by an insured. This is a basic premise of homeowner liability coverage.
However, when an insured causes damage to a third party automobile through their actions and those actions are not involving the use or operation (etc) of an automobile - such as the scenario we were presented with - there is nothing to exclude damage to a third party automobile.
Lets look at some clearer (maybe) examples.
(a) kids are playing baseball in Newt's yard, and his grandson hits a whopper that non-intentionally goes right through the windshield of the neighbour's car - this would be covered in the same section as the model airplane story.
(b) Newt's up on the roof of his new one story addition to his home, on the right end that is adjacent to the neighbour's driveway, putting down and nailing the plywood underlay for the roof. He is stubborn, trying to do it himself, and as he jockeys around a 4x8 foot sheet near the roof edge he looses his grip of it and it sails towards the ground; managing to carve a nice groove in the neighbour's car - this would be covered in the same section as the model airplane story.
(c) Newt's cutting his front lawn with his power mower, and as he comes along parallel to the neighbour's driveway he twists his neck around to see some young cheerleaders practicing across the street led by Tom, and fails to see someone's discarded beer bottle thrown on his lawn, runs over it and send glass shrapnel flying into the neighbour's car resulting in some ugly gouges - this would be covered in the same section as the model airplane story.
(d) Newt has a crazy and old dog, and is noticed one day on top of the neighbour's car licking and tearing at the vinyl roof. This has never been noticed or seen before, and Newt chalks it up to the dog likely licking up old beer that the neighbour split on the car roof, regardless - this would be covered in the same section as the model airplane story. |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2003 : 05:40:23
|
Good summary Clayton, this is one claim we all agree on. Although it was considered a simple claim, I never treat them as simple anymore. I play the devils advocate with them until I am sure of the answer. I think I had better do this for a while until I know more of all the possibilities and situations.
Glad to see you are back, I thought maybe you got snowed in for the duration. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2003 : 06:26:43
|
Unfortunately Newt, I doubt 'we all' agree on this claim yet, or beyond yet - regarding the two elements of applied coverage.
I wouldn't have considered it as a 'simple' claim. It is a claim that likely would never be assigned outside by a carrier, and would be handled by a telephone adjuster. But I think it has enough twists in it that regardless of what 'desk' it landed on, any handler would be inclined to have to think about it and review their wording before speaking with the insured. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
HO 3 03 10 00/MODEL Airplane (repost)
Forum Locked
