- 1,016
it sounds strange to me that if your brother was 15 at the time, why wouldn't they be suing the parents instead of the brother?
Potential for Home Insurance to Cover Him?
- Thread starter jamieo0
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #12
I am unsure of that. While they would likely be able to get more money from adults in a case like this, I think they are not suing the parents because it would be very difficult to prove they were at fault. Just my guess though.
It did not happen at our parents house. My brother is being sued by the individual he was in an altercation with.
The ISO-standard homowners policy doesn't cover intentional acts with a minor exception for property damage by someone under the age of about 13. So, it usually does no good to seek insurance proceeds by suing someone who caused intentional harm.
However, the policy has a Severability of Insurance clause:
"This insurance applies separately to each 'insured'. This condition will not increase our limit of liability for any one 'occurrence'."
Since the parents didn't cause intentional harm, they would have coverage under the policy IF the other party can demonstrate legal liability, Regardless, the insurer would be obligated to provide a defense for the parents until or unless the legal liability issue is resolved.
However, the policy has a Severability of Insurance clause:
"This insurance applies separately to each 'insured'. This condition will not increase our limit of liability for any one 'occurrence'."
Since the parents didn't cause intentional harm, they would have coverage under the policy IF the other party can demonstrate legal liability, Regardless, the insurer would be obligated to provide a defense for the parents until or unless the legal liability issue is resolved.
- Thread starter
- #14
Thank you. I've been doing quite a bit of reading and have read that often times, it really comes down to the wording and that will ultimately determine if the person will be covered. For example, apparently there have been cases where an individual punched someone, but when trying to claim with their insurance, they basically said "I did punch them, but I did not intend to inflict the severity of damages that I did".
Does that sound like complete crap or is it actual true?
In this case, my brother landed a single punch and the injury suffered by the other is almost unimaginable (in other words, just about no one would suspect a single punch to cause such injury).
It depends on case law in the jurisdiction where the occurrence took place. In a NY case, an angry husband went to a bar where his wife and alleged lover were and opened fire with a pistol. He missed both of them but killed a guy in the corner. The court found coverage under his homeowners policy because he didn't intent to kill the other guy (that's not how the ISO form should be interpreted today).
In another case, a TN homeowner, having had his garbage can repeatedly overturned by a raccoon, waited with a shotgun in the pre-dawn hours. When he heard the can being moved around, he opened fired...only to hit the garbage collector. The court ruled his homeowner policy didn't respond because his actions themselves were intentional even though the results weren't.
In another case, a TN homeowner, having had his garbage can repeatedly overturned by a raccoon, waited with a shotgun in the pre-dawn hours. When he heard the can being moved around, he opened fired...only to hit the garbage collector. The court ruled his homeowner policy didn't respond because his actions themselves were intentional even though the results weren't.
- Thread starter
- #16
Thank you. With that said, the incident happened in another country (which is where the lawsuit is filed). Our parents home insurance policy is in the United States. So in deciding whether there is coverage or not, would the insurance company looked at case law in the state where we had home insurance, or the country where the incident occurred?
- Thread starter
- #19
This occurred in Canada.
Similar threads
