Regarding the second condition, couldn’t the adjuster have claimed that the trailer sat idly at the insured premises for most of the year (not operated), but while in operation for those three days, it was away from the described premises? I would argue that technically it wasn’t being operated at all while at the described premises and that it was only operated while it was away from the described premises. As you mention, the exclusionary wording applies only to “operation”.
TL, you make an interesting point. You at least create the possibility of more than one reasonable interpretation of the contract language. But, under contra proferentum, the insured is likely going to win that battle if litigated. Fortunately for the insured, in this actual claim, the adjuster backed off and paid it.
Regarding the second condition, couldn’t the adjuster claim that while the trailer sat idly at the described premises, it was not being operated and that while it was away from the described premises for those three days, that is the only time it was being operated? You mention that the exclusionary wording applies only to “operation”, so I would argue that it was operated solely away from the described premises and was not operated at all at the described premises – therefore the exclusion could apply.
Again, an interesting view, but in the case of trailers, are they ever really “operated” as one operates a motor vehicle? Sounds like the entire provision could use a rewrite?
I think you got this right Bill. I was part of a discussion about this language many years ago. I think issue turned on the “other insurance” aspect. Meaning that the Property underwriters didn’t want to contribute to coverage on property that should be covered under Commercial Auto or Inland Marine policies. Interestingly, I recall that there was a consensus that on premises coverage was not a problem until the trailer was registered or moved away from the premises.
Regarding the second condition, couldn’t the adjuster have claimed that the trailer sat idly at the insured premises for most of the year (not operated), but while in operation for those three days, it was away from the described premises? I would argue that technically it wasn’t being operated at all while at the described premises and that it was only operated while it was away from the described premises. As you mention, the exclusionary wording applies only to “operation”.
TL, you make an interesting point. You at least create the possibility of more than one reasonable interpretation of the contract language. But, under contra proferentum, the insured is likely going to win that battle if litigated. Fortunately for the insured, in this actual claim, the adjuster backed off and paid it.
Regarding the second condition, couldn’t the adjuster claim that while the trailer sat idly at the described premises, it was not being operated and that while it was away from the described premises for those three days, that is the only time it was being operated? You mention that the exclusionary wording applies only to “operation”, so I would argue that it was operated solely away from the described premises and was not operated at all at the described premises – therefore the exclusion could apply.
Again, an interesting view, but in the case of trailers, are they ever really “operated” as one operates a motor vehicle? Sounds like the entire provision could use a rewrite?
I think you got this right Bill. I was part of a discussion about this language many years ago. I think issue turned on the “other insurance” aspect. Meaning that the Property underwriters didn’t want to contribute to coverage on property that should be covered under Commercial Auto or Inland Marine policies. Interestingly, I recall that there was a consensus that on premises coverage was not a problem until the trailer was registered or moved away from the premises.