Why should the insurance company pay? They did not misrepresent the policy – the contractor did. Good underwriting guidelines will show what risks they insure and what they don’t.
I’m not sure how the business policy would get dragged into this anyway. The contractor was not performing within that capacity when the action (or ommission) occurred.
I saw this one coming from a mile away. Pretending to be an “artisan” contractor, big time house builder buys small time insurance coverage for the cheapest premium he could find. I wonder how many more of these clowns have Utica First?
no matter what type of policy the contractor had, what did that have to do with the owner setting the bag of hot ashes in a combustible spot? she caused the fire, not the contractor!
Bob: The homeowner did not dispose of the ashes. Her boyfriend who was also the contractor)was the one who cleaned out the fire place and put the ashes in the mud room.
One might ask why the carrier never bothered to look at their insured’s website- underwriting 101 these days- the web site is very clear about the insured’s operations
I don’t see how the contractor, who was not operating in that capacity at the time, but as a guest of the family; his negligent disposal of burning embers does not fall under the definition of his work. He was simply asked to take out the trash by the homeowner. Does the contractor have CPL? I see now that the plaintiff’s attorney is suing the city for negligence in as much as they failed to monitor the work in progress, and that the family was occupying the house without a CO. Also, there is an alegation that the contractor purposely disabled the fire alarm system in the part of the home which was occupyable – does that fall under the scope of his work, or should it also be chalked up to the “stupidity Clause”?
Utica First. Public last. Pay the dang claim and recover from the Insured.
Why should the insurance company pay? They did not misrepresent the policy – the contractor did. Good underwriting guidelines will show what risks they insure and what they don’t.
I’m not sure how the business policy would get dragged into this anyway. The contractor was not performing within that capacity when the action (or ommission) occurred.
It’s called Deep Pockets. Someone has to pay………
I saw this one coming from a mile away. Pretending to be an “artisan” contractor, big time house builder buys small time insurance coverage for the cheapest premium he could find. I wonder how many more of these clowns have Utica First?
Hope the Utica First agent has a big E&O policy. He’s going to get in on this one, for sure.
You should all take a look at this guys business history. There are like 3 others suing him right now for not finishing work, etc….
no matter what type of policy the contractor had, what did that have to do with the owner setting the bag of hot ashes in a combustible spot? she caused the fire, not the contractor!
Borcina is the contractor, not the owner. Borcina is the one who set the ashes in the combustible area.
Bob: The homeowner did not dispose of the ashes. Her boyfriend who was also the contractor)was the one who cleaned out the fire place and put the ashes in the mud room.
Where’s the homeowners carrier in all this? The agent had better have a huge E & O policy. They’re in it for sure!!!
One might ask why the carrier never bothered to look at their insured’s website- underwriting 101 these days- the web site is very clear about the insured’s operations
I don’t see how the contractor, who was not operating in that capacity at the time, but as a guest of the family; his negligent disposal of burning embers does not fall under the definition of his work. He was simply asked to take out the trash by the homeowner. Does the contractor have CPL? I see now that the plaintiff’s attorney is suing the city for negligence in as much as they failed to monitor the work in progress, and that the family was occupying the house without a CO. Also, there is an alegation that the contractor purposely disabled the fire alarm system in the part of the home which was occupyable – does that fall under the scope of his work, or should it also be chalked up to the “stupidity Clause”?