rather than sue their HO carrier who went by very clear policy exclusions, why aren’t they going after the contractor who did the spraying?
and why didn’t IJ explain what the state did wrong to have a judgement against them?
Bob is on target. It is highly likely there is a pollution exclusion as well as a pest/vermin exclusion and no stated coverage for contractual / performance PD.
Seems like the carrier should file for a declaratory statement from the court as to where the coverage is and secure a response from the spay company and regulatory agency for spraying on part of their insured. How did they get illegal spray in the first place?
Assuming the State and Contractor worked out the $450K settlement (and they are all in bed together), and the insured signed a release, they may have prejudiced carrier’s rights to subrogation recovery….hence another coverage issue
I found this article http://digital.vpr.net/post/bedbugs-turn-rutland-couples-life-upside-down
Sounds like the State accepted responsibility when the couple agreed to take in a foster child.
I wouldn’t be too sure that a pollution exclusion would apply, as a pollutant is a substance that escapes from its intended container or location by accident, such as an oil pipeline break.
The illegal spray was put in the house intentionally, so the pollution exclusion may not apply. It doesn’t sound like the pest/vermin exclusion is an issue, as they are not asserting damage from the bedbugs.
So, by your thinking, an intentionally set fire in the kitchen, which unintentionally spreads to the bedrooms, would then be covered, because only the kitchen was intended to be burned by arson??? One CAN intentionally pollute their property without the pollution source ‘escaping’ or ‘leaking’ from a container. The pollutant itself existing in the dwelling IS pollution, and therefore, should be excluded under the pollution exclusion.
So the couple received $450K from the state & now they want money from their homeowners insurance? I wonder how much the house & contents were worth prior to the bed bugs or is this a pain & suffering type of payment from the state. Does the state now own the house/contents for the $450K they paid? Did they or do they still have a mortgage on this property?
The apartment they are in now is paid by the state and they are responsible for the utilities only is what the other article says. I too wonder why they are not suing the contractor that did the spraying. I’m thinking the state paid on behalf of him as they recommended him. They’ve collected from the state so why are they going after the insurance company?
I really don’t know why things like this still surprise me……
So, by the family’s thinking, I should be able to collect (or sue) my carrier for arson, because ‘fire’ IS a covered peril. People try to second-guess the ‘intent’ of policy language instead of reading it for what it IS.
I don’t get the arson analaogy – these people didn’t intentionally put poisonous chemical in their home, it was done by the contractor. Fire by arson is covered, if done by a third party, with no involvement by the property owner.
rather than sue their HO carrier who went by very clear policy exclusions, why aren’t they going after the contractor who did the spraying?
and why didn’t IJ explain what the state did wrong to have a judgement against them?
Bob is on target. It is highly likely there is a pollution exclusion as well as a pest/vermin exclusion and no stated coverage for contractual / performance PD.
Seems like the carrier should file for a declaratory statement from the court as to where the coverage is and secure a response from the spay company and regulatory agency for spraying on part of their insured. How did they get illegal spray in the first place?
Assuming the State and Contractor worked out the $450K settlement (and they are all in bed together), and the insured signed a release, they may have prejudiced carrier’s rights to subrogation recovery….hence another coverage issue
I found this article http://digital.vpr.net/post/bedbugs-turn-rutland-couples-life-upside-down
Sounds like the State accepted responsibility when the couple agreed to take in a foster child.
I wouldn’t be too sure that a pollution exclusion would apply, as a pollutant is a substance that escapes from its intended container or location by accident, such as an oil pipeline break.
The illegal spray was put in the house intentionally, so the pollution exclusion may not apply. It doesn’t sound like the pest/vermin exclusion is an issue, as they are not asserting damage from the bedbugs.
So, by your thinking, an intentionally set fire in the kitchen, which unintentionally spreads to the bedrooms, would then be covered, because only the kitchen was intended to be burned by arson??? One CAN intentionally pollute their property without the pollution source ‘escaping’ or ‘leaking’ from a container. The pollutant itself existing in the dwelling IS pollution, and therefore, should be excluded under the pollution exclusion.
How was the couple to know the spraying was going to be a banned substance? They had no foreknowledge of it.
So the couple received $450K from the state & now they want money from their homeowners insurance? I wonder how much the house & contents were worth prior to the bed bugs or is this a pain & suffering type of payment from the state. Does the state now own the house/contents for the $450K they paid? Did they or do they still have a mortgage on this property?
The apartment they are in now is paid by the state and they are responsible for the utilities only is what the other article says. I too wonder why they are not suing the contractor that did the spraying. I’m thinking the state paid on behalf of him as they recommended him. They’ve collected from the state so why are they going after the insurance company?
I really don’t know why things like this still surprise me……
So, by the family’s thinking, I should be able to collect (or sue) my carrier for arson, because ‘fire’ IS a covered peril. People try to second-guess the ‘intent’ of policy language instead of reading it for what it IS.
I don’t get the arson analaogy – these people didn’t intentionally put poisonous chemical in their home, it was done by the contractor. Fire by arson is covered, if done by a third party, with no involvement by the property owner.
That disgusting picture of the bedbug that used to accompany these articles.
Sleep tight…