No Insurance Coverage for $12.7M North Dakota Industrial Fire

December 22, 2014

  • December 22, 2014 at 1:16 pm
    Libby says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Since when is fire NOT covered???

  • December 22, 2014 at 1:44 pm
    Scott says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Agree, Libby; and question the verbiage “errors and omission” for basic fire coverage. There will be E&O all right – the agency’s!! Wonder who the Direct Writer was on this one…………

  • December 22, 2014 at 3:14 pm
    Jess Sayen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Not very well-written article, or maybe they didn’t have any of the details. I wonder if that location got left off the property schedule. So fire would have been covered, but maybe that particular building/location was not covered. I have a Property policy that has an “Unintentional Errors” clause, for items not reported, left off the schedule by mistake, but with sublimit of $100,000.

  • December 22, 2014 at 3:21 pm
    Jess Sayen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    IJ left out this part of the story from the Williston Herald:

    “We found out insurance agents are not honest people,” Vestal said. “I want the public to know that [insurance companies] want your money for insurance premiums, but when it comes time to file a claim they forget about you.”

    Vestal thought he had an errors and omissions clause in his policy to cover incidents not expressly mentioned in the coverage. Vestal’s agent switched carriers, however, and that clause didn’t carry over.

    The fire cost Vestal $12.7 million. Insurance won’t pay one red cent.

    “The insurance companies have been a bunch of sleaze bags,” Vestal said. “I have a hard time being pleasant to an insurance guy right now.”

    • December 23, 2014 at 4:39 pm
      Jess Sayen says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      What ? I can’t believe no one “liked” this ? ! :)

  • December 22, 2014 at 6:09 pm
    Brian Hutson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is a terribly written article. What was the basis of the carrier’s denial?

  • December 22, 2014 at 6:59 pm
    Celtica says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wondering about the premium details between the expired and renewal policies. Insureds do shop for to reduce premium without realizing the difference in coverage from carrier to carrier.

  • December 23, 2014 at 12:31 pm
    2lanelover says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Agreed, this is a very poorly written piece. However, I’m thinking the reason for declination is the flame from the employee’s torch was considered “a friendly fire”, and therefore excluded. But, if I’m not mistaken, that only applies to property directly connected to the source of the “friendly fire” and the rest of the property should have coverage. Still, there has to be more here than what we have been told……..

  • December 23, 2014 at 3:22 pm
    Libby says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If this guy was depending on an E&O clause to fall back on in order to not properly report property values, he deserves to have his coverage denied.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*