Very poorly written article. I expect better from a publication titled “Insurance Journal”
Mr. Marsh, not State Farm, was the party against whom a liability determination was under review by the court. It is simple tort law. Did Mr. Marsh owe a duty to the injured party and was a duty breached by Mr. Marsh?
State Farm fulfilled all of its contractual obligations and, no doubt, provided Mr. Marsh an appropriate defense.
The law is clear, no negligence attaches for the occurrence described.
This article and headline implies that an insurer was seeking to avoid its obligations which perpetuates an image of our industry that is not accurate.
Wayne, I concur with you as I found the language odd, but it very well may be a case where the landowner agreed to tender his rights under the policy in exchange for the suit being dropped against him. Either way I am glad to see a judge do the right thing in this case.
I agree with both your statements, but I think it would be beneficial to clarify your remark to say “Accidental shootings are ***USUALLY*** covered under most HO policies.” Accidental shooting exclusions include: shooting yourself or your family member, being under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, or if you’re conducting professional activities. This clarification is not intended to invalidate your accurate comments on the subject.
True about HO policies. But in this case Wisconsin has passed an immunity statute for this situation so the owner is not liable for injuries that were caused. So no case.
Why would someone down vote this comment? The judge ruled that “…Wisconsin’s recreational immunity statute applies in the case.” What Roger said is 100% correct in this instance. If I voted on this site, I would definitely give you a thumbs up (but I don’t, so you’re stuck at zero :).
Hunting is such a big thing in Wis. Its a big revenue source. Nice to know that they have protected land owners.
If this law applies to land owners that allow for S Mobiles & ATV trail, that would explain the owners willingness to allow for such things. With out it, how many would willingly allow motorized vechs flying around all all speeds / hours of the day.
I know the local S Mobile clubs have reimbursed land owners for property damage.
Very poorly written article. I expect better from a publication titled “Insurance Journal”
Mr. Marsh, not State Farm, was the party against whom a liability determination was under review by the court. It is simple tort law. Did Mr. Marsh owe a duty to the injured party and was a duty breached by Mr. Marsh?
State Farm fulfilled all of its contractual obligations and, no doubt, provided Mr. Marsh an appropriate defense.
The law is clear, no negligence attaches for the occurrence described.
This article and headline implies that an insurer was seeking to avoid its obligations which perpetuates an image of our industry that is not accurate.
You are correct. The liability question revolved around the property owner, not the insurer. The headline has been corrected. Thank you.
Isn’t it more accurate to say that the landowner was not found to be liable?
Right. Again it is people chasing deep pockets. Did he sue the guy who shot him? Probably not, since he didn’t have anything…
Wayne, I concur with you as I found the language odd, but it very well may be a case where the landowner agreed to tender his rights under the policy in exchange for the suit being dropped against him. Either way I am glad to see a judge do the right thing in this case.
How about we actually sue the guy who accidentally??? shot the other guy. Accidental shootings are covered under most HO policies.
I agree with both your statements, but I think it would be beneficial to clarify your remark to say “Accidental shootings are ***USUALLY*** covered under most HO policies.” Accidental shooting exclusions include: shooting yourself or your family member, being under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, or if you’re conducting professional activities. This clarification is not intended to invalidate your accurate comments on the subject.
True about HO policies. But in this case Wisconsin has passed an immunity statute for this situation so the owner is not liable for injuries that were caused. So no case.
Why would someone down vote this comment? The judge ruled that “…Wisconsin’s recreational immunity statute applies in the case.” What Roger said is 100% correct in this instance. If I voted on this site, I would definitely give you a thumbs up (but I don’t, so you’re stuck at zero :).
I would guess the “thumbs-down” is for the fact that Wisconsin has that statute, but I could be wrong.
Hunting is such a big thing in Wis. Its a big revenue source. Nice to know that they have protected land owners.
If this law applies to land owners that allow for S Mobiles & ATV trail, that would explain the owners willingness to allow for such things. With out it, how many would willingly allow motorized vechs flying around all all speeds / hours of the day.
I know the local S Mobile clubs have reimbursed land owners for property damage.