HO / Umbrella Liability for sidewalk and street tree

[adjusterjack]

I don't find an exclusion like that on my current or previous policies with other companies.

However, I'm wondering if that exclusion is unique to California or unique to your area because of that ordinance.

I just came across a post on another site where a homeowner in the Bay Area received notice from his city that he had to repair a sidewalk or pay the city $3000 to have the city repair it.

If the San Jose ordinance is common to other cities in CA it might be that insurance companies who write in CA are aware of it and have tailored their policies to address the potential consequences of the ordinance.

Whatever insurance company you consider going with, you'll want to insist on a sample policy booklet (before you buy) to see if that exclusion is present.

 

[VolAgent]

I don't find an exclusion like that on my current or previous policies with other companies.

However, I'm wondering if that exclusion is unique to California or unique to your area because of that ordinance.

I just came across a post on another site where a homeowner in the Bay Area received notice from his city that he had to repair a sidewalk or pay the city $3000 to have the city repair it.

If the San Jose ordinance is common to other cities in CA it might be that insurance companies who write in CA are aware of it and have tailored their policies to address the potential consequences of the ordinance.

Whatever insurance company you consider going with, you'll want to insist on a sample policy booklet (before you buy) to see if that exclusion is present.

I believe most cities have a similar ordinance. I know it exists here, although it is rarely and arbitrarily enforced.

 

[InsCommentary]

Sounds like, if someone violates an open burning law and burns down the neighbor's house, there is no coverage. That's not liability coverage in the public interest, yet regulators approve this kind of stuff all the time. You'll note int he ISO PAP, that there is no "criminal" exclusion...the reason is the liability coverage there is primarily to benefit the public. However, regulators have allowed all kinds of nasty PAP exclusions in the marketplace.

 

[VolAgent]

Sounds like, if someone violates an open burning law and burns down the neighbor's house, there is no coverage. That's not liability coverage in the public interest, yet regulators approve this kind of stuff all the time. You'll note int he ISO PAP, that there is no "criminal" exclusion...the reason is the liability coverage there is primarily to benefit the public. However, regulators have allowed all kinds of nasty PAP exclusions in the marketplace.

I pity the attorney who gets to stand in open court and defend why his client, the insurance company, is not liable to its policyholder who was sued over an poorly maintained sidewalk, or an open burn bad violation, etc.

Well, not too much. He is getting paid great money to do it and I'm sure he will do it with a smile, even as the judge tries not to laugh.

 

[InsCommentary]

Even the ISO language potentially complicates liability coverage for negligent burning:


E. Coverage E – Personal Liability And Coverage F – Medical Payments To Others

Coverages E and F do not apply to the following:

1. Expected Or Intended Injury

"Bodily injury" or "property damage" which is expected or intended by an "insured", even if the resulting "bodily injury" or "property damage":

a. Is of a different kind, quality or degree than initially expected or intended; or

b. Is sustained by a different person, entity or property than initially expected or intended.

However, this Exclusion E.1. does not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" resulting from the use of reasonable force by an "insured" to protect persons or property;


You intend to burn some brush but the fire spreads to the neighbor's house. Isn't that PD "sustained by a different…property than initially expected or intended"?

I pointed this out to ISO when they made this change in contract language and was told that no adjuster would ever interpret the policy that way. Uh huh.

 

[VolAgent]

I pointed this out to ISO when they made this change in contract language and was told that no adjuster would ever interpret the policy that way. Uh huh.

Well, I can't believe anyone with a brain would. Although I'm sure there is someone stupid enough to do it. Hopefully the adjuster would be overruled by a supervisor.

Also, how would burning undesired brush on your land be considered property damage? By burning it, presumably you are improving your property, not damaging it. Otherwise I should go sue the jeweler who properly engraved my watch.