This is a new low for the insurance industry. Pollution caused the deaths? What caused the pollution? Seems to me it was the fire. I guess this company is not concerned about their public image.
Maybe it about time the insurance industry stands up for itself. I’m sorry someone was killed but the woman that set the fire should be liable. The doctor she worked should not be liable for her actions. She committed a felony. She broke the law. She stands alone on this one but courts have made ruling in the past that really in effect make no one liable for their actions. It is a slim shot for the insurance company to take this stance but they are going to be out sums of money either way.
I hope they win this one and give other companies the fortitude to take a stand and quit rolling over. Lets get back to the reality of letting those that do the wrongs be responsible for their actions.
The problem is not the issue of insurance should not be liable under the circumstances – if that was the argument of the insurance company – than OK. But to deny based on pollution exclusion is a new low. I guess the policy does not have an exception for Hostile fire?? The loss is fire – and the courts have to deal with liability – which is the real problem
I’m going to have to agree with Jack on this one. Who was actually negligent here. I don’t see how it could be the building owner or the woman’s employer. So, why should Boxer Properties or their insurer be responsible for the law suit. In fact, they should be subrogating to recover their losses due to the property loss. It all boils down to a search for deep pockets.
What ever happened to Proximate cause?
The proximate cause of an event in that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new cause, produced that event, and without which that event would not have happened.
arrson would have been the cause and the policy normally provied coverage
Look, the Building owner did not start the fire the made the smoke that may have resulted in pollution (wow, what a stretch). So why would they be a target of a suite for these damages. The obvious answer is they appear to be able to come up with big money. It’s Wrong. The woman who started the fire should be the only target because she is the only negligent party.
There are two separate things being argued here. Is the employer or the building owner liable for the criminal actions of another? He** no and argue/defend that. Should the Great American make this weak argument to avoid defense cost? Probably not but make the loss circumstances a little less tragic and you may change your mind.
BTW, the pollution exclusion probably has language exempting proximate cause arguments. Remember this is a third-party loss, not a first-party.
Word on the street is that they had an absolute pollution exclusion, which, among other things, deletes the hostile fire exception. Someone posted something about the fire that made the smoke that caused the pollution.
If you read the ISO definition of pollution, smoke IS pollution. Smoke does not cause pollution.
If the bodies of the victims were burned, then that’s one thing, but if they died due to smoke inhalation, then I’d say that Great American SHOULD have a case.
Not a popular position socially, but contractually it is a sound argument.
Let’s not forget that the insured purchased the coverage with an absolute pollution exclusion of his own free will. He likely had several options on the table and chose the cheapest one.
To the people that say the carrier is scum and is wrong, READ the ISO CGL form, then read the ISO absolute pollution exclusion. It’s there in black & white.
Come on – if someone set you house on fire, would you submit a claim to your homeowner’s carrier or just try to recoup your losses from the guy who set the fire? If you’re hit by an uninsured motorist would you go after the drive or expect coverage from your carrier? – assuming you purchased uninsured motorist coverage which I hope you do. Great American’s stance on this is ridiculous and, barring some weird judge, the case should be dismissed with prejudice quickly.
This is NOT an Uninsured Motorist case. It was a fire. The company has paid the fire damage. Now, somebody that was hurt by the fire that the nurse caused, wants the location to pay the damages. That’s like asking the owner of a store to pay the damages caused by an accident in their parking lot.
Now, our court system has been abused by plaintiffs and foul judges for many years, and in so doing, these kind of cases now sound legitimate. Poppycock!
If their liability policy excludes damages caused by smoke, then the damages should be excluded. End of conversation.
Somewhere in this chain the definition of “hostile fire” is going to come into play. And, if you look at that definition what happened in this case would not be covered. I’m afraid the insurnce company is right in its denial of this claim.
I will move all my business from GA. This is wrong. I am sure they are asking for our tax paying dollars and are doing this crap. They should join the others at the FED prison!
The “Proximate Cause” of the Loss is what should rule here. You can have smoke – but no fire – that is the uncovered pollutant.
The by-product of a severe fire is ensuing smoke and that is covered. There is a pollutant Exclusion in a lot of Property Policies which exclude smoke pollutants, etc… – but if there is a fire, all the direct physical damage caused by the fire is covered along with the ensuing smoke damage.
The issues in the instance of this case are no different.
(Regardless of the pollution exclusion), The liability here falls on the person who committed the arson, that is agreed. However, the Dr.’s policy will cover her as an insured (under the employee). So once again, not getting into the pollution/hostile fire portion, you folks that think the Dr.’s policy should not pay/defend, need to go back to your policies and look at the definition of an insured.
To the people who keep saying the owner of the building aren’t liable, I remember this fire because I’m from Houston. There was an issue with the fire suppression system in this building, and a question of if the fire alarms were working right.
The question isn’t in this case of whether or not the building owner holds liability or not, that has already been established.
Well, maybe the building owner and the Dr are one and the same, but I’m not reading it that way.
So, whether the nurse was an employee of the Doc, or not, doesn’t really matter – unless, they are the same.
The lawyers in the article are making the case that since the company that held the base $1 million of coverage for the building didn’t make the pollution arguement is unimportant as well. They are two different policies and may have different wording. Or, maybe they figued a million dollars wasn’t worth paying to defend and getting the same public backlash as we see now. But, for $24 million, it’s probably worth taking a stand.
I’m from the Houston area as well, OctOber. Now that you mention it, I think there was some concern over the fire protection system in the building. If I recall, I think it was something about the size of the building requiring less city inspections. If so, that in and of itself, does not translate to negligence on the part of the building owner, does it? Now, if an alarm or extinguisher didn’t work (I’m not sure of the facts) does that automatically mean the building owner is to blame? Maybe the equipment was faulty. A brand new fire extinguisher might not actually work, right?
Anyway, maybe it’s faulty news reporting, but I would think if that was the situation, the offensive legal team would be making that case loud and clear. Instead, they are simply saying the insurance company has stooped to a new low for using the legal contract they offered to the client – the building owner.
” Weaver admitted she set the fire to hide that she had not completed some paperwork on time for her boss, a cosmetic surgeon, and feared she might lose her job. ”
Some lazy imbecile doesn’t do her paperwork, so she burns down a building and kills people. Yet it is the fiscal responsibility of the property owner?
I think the “new low” of our society is blaming those with the deepest pockets rather than those who are actually responsible? After all, the most they’d ever get from the nurse is a used car, probably some credit card debt, and maybe some old fast food wrappers.
Smoke damage resulting from a fire is covered on the property side of the policy but this is third party coverage. Pollution liability exclusions don’t typically care what is the proximate cause or source of the pollution.
You have to keep in mind which part of the contract you are reading here.
This is a new low for the insurance industry. Pollution caused the deaths? What caused the pollution? Seems to me it was the fire. I guess this company is not concerned about their public image.
Maybe it about time the insurance industry stands up for itself. I’m sorry someone was killed but the woman that set the fire should be liable. The doctor she worked should not be liable for her actions. She committed a felony. She broke the law. She stands alone on this one but courts have made ruling in the past that really in effect make no one liable for their actions. It is a slim shot for the insurance company to take this stance but they are going to be out sums of money either way.
I hope they win this one and give other companies the fortitude to take a stand and quit rolling over. Lets get back to the reality of letting those that do the wrongs be responsible for their actions.
The problem is not the issue of insurance should not be liable under the circumstances – if that was the argument of the insurance company – than OK. But to deny based on pollution exclusion is a new low. I guess the policy does not have an exception for Hostile fire?? The loss is fire – and the courts have to deal with liability – which is the real problem
I’m going to have to agree with Jack on this one. Who was actually negligent here. I don’t see how it could be the building owner or the woman’s employer. So, why should Boxer Properties or their insurer be responsible for the law suit. In fact, they should be subrogating to recover their losses due to the property loss. It all boils down to a search for deep pockets.
What ever happened to Proximate cause?
The proximate cause of an event in that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new cause, produced that event, and without which that event would not have happened.
arrson would have been the cause and the policy normally provied coverage
Look, the Building owner did not start the fire the made the smoke that may have resulted in pollution (wow, what a stretch). So why would they be a target of a suite for these damages. The obvious answer is they appear to be able to come up with big money. It’s Wrong. The woman who started the fire should be the only target because she is the only negligent party.
There are two separate things being argued here. Is the employer or the building owner liable for the criminal actions of another? He** no and argue/defend that. Should the Great American make this weak argument to avoid defense cost? Probably not but make the loss circumstances a little less tragic and you may change your mind.
BTW, the pollution exclusion probably has language exempting proximate cause arguments. Remember this is a third-party loss, not a first-party.
Word on the street is that they had an absolute pollution exclusion, which, among other things, deletes the hostile fire exception. Someone posted something about the fire that made the smoke that caused the pollution.
If you read the ISO definition of pollution, smoke IS pollution. Smoke does not cause pollution.
If the bodies of the victims were burned, then that’s one thing, but if they died due to smoke inhalation, then I’d say that Great American SHOULD have a case.
Not a popular position socially, but contractually it is a sound argument.
Let’s not forget that the insured purchased the coverage with an absolute pollution exclusion of his own free will. He likely had several options on the table and chose the cheapest one.
To the people that say the carrier is scum and is wrong, READ the ISO CGL form, then read the ISO absolute pollution exclusion. It’s there in black & white.
Come on – if someone set you house on fire, would you submit a claim to your homeowner’s carrier or just try to recoup your losses from the guy who set the fire? If you’re hit by an uninsured motorist would you go after the drive or expect coverage from your carrier? – assuming you purchased uninsured motorist coverage which I hope you do. Great American’s stance on this is ridiculous and, barring some weird judge, the case should be dismissed with prejudice quickly.
Blaze,
This is NOT an Uninsured Motorist case. It was a fire. The company has paid the fire damage. Now, somebody that was hurt by the fire that the nurse caused, wants the location to pay the damages. That’s like asking the owner of a store to pay the damages caused by an accident in their parking lot.
Now, our court system has been abused by plaintiffs and foul judges for many years, and in so doing, these kind of cases now sound legitimate. Poppycock!
If their liability policy excludes damages caused by smoke, then the damages should be excluded. End of conversation.
Somewhere in this chain the definition of “hostile fire” is going to come into play. And, if you look at that definition what happened in this case would not be covered. I’m afraid the insurnce company is right in its denial of this claim.
Always, always, always, request the Hostile Fire exception when faced with an Absolute Pollution Exclusion.
I will move all my business from GA. This is wrong. I am sure they are asking for our tax paying dollars and are doing this crap. They should join the others at the FED prison!
The “Proximate Cause” of the Loss is what should rule here. You can have smoke – but no fire – that is the uncovered pollutant.
The by-product of a severe fire is ensuing smoke and that is covered. There is a pollutant Exclusion in a lot of Property Policies which exclude smoke pollutants, etc… – but if there is a fire, all the direct physical damage caused by the fire is covered along with the ensuing smoke damage.
The issues in the instance of this case are no different.
The Proximate Cause is key BUT did the building owner contribute to the death of the claimants.
Answer: NO
Question – Where is the liability on the building owners part??
Answer: There is None (unless of course the building was in violation of known fire & safety building codes).
Why even bring up a Pollutant Exclusion??
It really doesn’t apply.
The Insurance Company will prevail.
(Regardless of the pollution exclusion), The liability here falls on the person who committed the arson, that is agreed. However, the Dr.’s policy will cover her as an insured (under the employee). So once again, not getting into the pollution/hostile fire portion, you folks that think the Dr.’s policy should not pay/defend, need to go back to your policies and look at the definition of an insured.
To the people who keep saying the owner of the building aren’t liable, I remember this fire because I’m from Houston. There was an issue with the fire suppression system in this building, and a question of if the fire alarms were working right.
The question isn’t in this case of whether or not the building owner holds liability or not, that has already been established.
Well, maybe the building owner and the Dr are one and the same, but I’m not reading it that way.
So, whether the nurse was an employee of the Doc, or not, doesn’t really matter – unless, they are the same.
The lawyers in the article are making the case that since the company that held the base $1 million of coverage for the building didn’t make the pollution arguement is unimportant as well. They are two different policies and may have different wording. Or, maybe they figued a million dollars wasn’t worth paying to defend and getting the same public backlash as we see now. But, for $24 million, it’s probably worth taking a stand.
I’m from the Houston area as well, OctOber. Now that you mention it, I think there was some concern over the fire protection system in the building. If I recall, I think it was something about the size of the building requiring less city inspections. If so, that in and of itself, does not translate to negligence on the part of the building owner, does it? Now, if an alarm or extinguisher didn’t work (I’m not sure of the facts) does that automatically mean the building owner is to blame? Maybe the equipment was faulty. A brand new fire extinguisher might not actually work, right?
Anyway, maybe it’s faulty news reporting, but I would think if that was the situation, the offensive legal team would be making that case loud and clear. Instead, they are simply saying the insurance company has stooped to a new low for using the legal contract they offered to the client – the building owner.
” Weaver admitted she set the fire to hide that she had not completed some paperwork on time for her boss, a cosmetic surgeon, and feared she might lose her job. ”
Some lazy imbecile doesn’t do her paperwork, so she burns down a building and kills people. Yet it is the fiscal responsibility of the property owner?
I think the “new low” of our society is blaming those with the deepest pockets rather than those who are actually responsible? After all, the most they’d ever get from the nurse is a used car, probably some credit card debt, and maybe some old fast food wrappers.
Shame, shame, shame on our litigious society.
Smoke damage resulting from a fire is covered on the property side of the policy but this is third party coverage. Pollution liability exclusions don’t typically care what is the proximate cause or source of the pollution.
You have to keep in mind which part of the contract you are reading here.
We want it all, low rates and high damage awards as a resulkt of a criminal action trying to cover her incompetant a*#.