Denial of a claim due to granting access to the property is the latest claim denial scam by both personal lines and commercial lines carriers. I’ve seen it happen before.
This makes nearly all insurance policies worthless for a wide variety of claims.
Without seeing the complaint against the insured and then comparing the policy language you cannot make an informed decision. Nor should you offer comment. There are too many unknowns to guess at whether the coverage dispute has merit or not.
good point about the business, but it’s clear, as you suggest, that it depends on the cause of action against him. Premises liability? I’m stumped about how that would not give rise to a duty to defend. Business may be more tenuous, since the only likely cause relating to that might be a conspiracy and that would dredge up the intentional act exclusion. I also agree with your inferred point that we don’t have enough information to see whether we would have done the same or we’d light a candle for the insuror.
Why isn’t the family going after the millionaire that killed the victim in the first place? Even if the insurer has to pay the claim, they then should subrogate the offender (which, if he had any insurance, would deny the claim due to it being an “intentional act”)
Denial of a claim due to granting access to the property is the latest claim denial scam by both personal lines and commercial lines carriers. I’ve seen it happen before.
This makes nearly all insurance policies worthless for a wide variety of claims.
was coverage denied? Should his personal liability under his HO policy protect him? Or, the GL of his business policy (if that is the case)?
Without seeing the complaint against the insured and then comparing the policy language you cannot make an informed decision. Nor should you offer comment. There are too many unknowns to guess at whether the coverage dispute has merit or not.
good point about the business, but it’s clear, as you suggest, that it depends on the cause of action against him. Premises liability? I’m stumped about how that would not give rise to a duty to defend. Business may be more tenuous, since the only likely cause relating to that might be a conspiracy and that would dredge up the intentional act exclusion. I also agree with your inferred point that we don’t have enough information to see whether we would have done the same or we’d light a candle for the insuror.
Why isn’t the family going after the millionaire that killed the victim in the first place? Even if the insurer has to pay the claim, they then should subrogate the offender (which, if he had any insurance, would deny the claim due to it being an “intentional act”)