Insurance

[ray66v]

I agree no good deed goes unpunished and sympathize with the situiation. However, Though what the Church member did was possibly/likely stupid, from a legal standpoint and from what was presented here, I don't think he is liable. The church member did acknowledge he was there, and it could be argued he had a reasonable expectation that the operator would look where he was going and see his vehicle. If there are extenuating circumstances that have not been presented, i.e. Very dark night, very low visibility, etc., then perhaps some of the liability does fall on him. In that case could see if a small claims judge will be willing to place some of the burden on the Church member.
If this was in Ohio, when you are backing up and there is any kind of accident, especially with a parked car, you are always at fault. The only exception that shifts some of the blame I have seen is; if the car was not "legally Parked". And it is difficult to be illegally parked in a parking lot.

Have you thought of asking the Church if they would ask the members for a raffle or donations to help with the effort?
He11, ask for the Tractor by net members to help! I am sure many people would be glad to cough up a few bucks to help to ease your burden.
That way we could turn a negative experience into a positive one.

 

[UPRAISER]

The church has lots of good folks, they heard about the problem and got the insurance company working on it. They indicated since I was not being paid for the work it was covered, now we will see what happens.

I also got several relayed messages that said they appreciated the good deed and did not want me to be paying for a mistake.

I did not want to hang it on the member since he and his wife do a whole lot more than I do. I sure did not want to stur up something, he is retired military and not flush with $, they put in a lot of time helping others.

I have always found that I always get back a lot more than I give. In fact I have had two offers to cover my costs, one from a dear little lady that heard about it.

The other part about it is that I will learn to look backwards a bit better and some people at the church agreed to be flaggers for me in the future.

I also found out that a young man who is down on his luck had shoveled about a city block of sidewalk for them. They let him park his van in the parking lot at night and he sleeps in it. They get a night watchman and
are doing what a good church should do.

I also learned that I need to be a bit more careful and get a bit more insurance.

I feel that I am more than repaid and covered for anything out of pocket and a lot of nice friends as a result.

Curt

 

[gemini5362]

I surely did not mean to imply that the church member should be taken to court and sued. I was thinking that they should volunteer to help with the cost. If they are not flush with money a small amount that they can afford would be a nice gesture. Also the next meeting at the church pass the hat to help. You are doing a service for free out of the kindness of your heart. While I am old enough to know that " No good deed goes unpunished" maybe the church can help mitigate the punishment. I hope the insurance company does cover it. If not hopefully you wont have to pay the whole thing yourself.

 

[LBrown59]

1*NOTHING burns me more than seeing someone doing the right thing getting screwed for it.
2*I agreed about the guy who parked the car there in sharing responsibility.
3* I would consider getting one of those backup alarms
==

==
1*What's there to be burned about?
I don't see where anyone's trying to take advantage of UPRAISER.
2* Just because the car maybe should not have been there doesn't give UPRAISER the right to run over it.
I had this very thing happen to me some years ago.
I was parked on the street in front of the post office in a parking space marked 5 minute parking for postal patrons only.
While I was waiting in the car for my wife to get off work at the store across the street a woman pulls in to the curb in front of me stopped her car and threw it into reverse about 6 stalls in front and floored it.
She came flying backwards at me crashing right into the front end of my new car.
That woman tried to pin the fault on me because I wasn't supposed to be parked in that stall.
It didn't fly with the officer and he simply said to her, lady just because he wasn't supposed to be parked there that don't give you the right to run over his car as he handed her the ticket.
What she was really P O 'd about was that I caught her.
Had I been in the Post Office she would have just driven off and I'd never have known who damaged my car.
3*I don't think the car would have heard it and moved out of the tractors way.

 

[gemini5362]

==
1*What's there to be burned about?
I don't see where anyone's trying to take advantage of UPRAISER.
2* Just because the car maybe should not have been there doesn't give UPRAISER the right to run over it.
I had this very thing happen to me some years ago.
I was parked on the street in front of the post office in a parking space marked 5 minute parking for postal patrons only.
While I was waiting in the car for my wife to get off work at the store across the street a woman pulls in to the curb in front of me stopped her car and threw it into reverse about 6 stalls in front and floored it.
She came flying backwards at me crashing right into the front end of my new car.
That woman tried to pin the fault on me because I wasn't supposed to be parked in that stall.
It didn't fly with the officer and he simply said to her, lady just because he wasn't supposed to be parked there that don't give you the right to run over his car as he handed her the ticket.
What she was really P O 'd about was that I caught her.
Had I been in the Post Office she would have just driven off and I'd never have known who damaged my car.
3*I don't think the car would have heard it and moved out of the tractors way.

1. some things burn people up when they see them happening the poster has the right to not like certain things.

2. you are right being parked there does not give upraiser the right to run over it. However when you see someone doing work with a tractor parking behind them might not have been the smartest thing to do. If a person is working they might not realize where you are parked. Some of the blame should go to them for parking in the way of someone working.

3. Parking in a postal patron parking space while waiting for your wife to get off of work. Did they not have parking where she worked at. Plus why were the police in the post office parking lot. They gave her a ticket? I hope she got a lawyer the jurisdiction for police officers is kind of hazy. Postal Property is federal property.

4. Was she an elderly lady. It is amazing how often I see elderly people come up to a post office and go to hit the brake and hit the gas instead. I have had to help put up plywood to secure the building a few times where someone has ran into the lobby with their car. It has always been someone elderly.

 

[Red55]

==
1*What's there to be burned about? $1700 worth of damage
I don't see where anyone's trying to take advantage of UPRAISER.

2* Just because the car maybe should not have been there doesn't give UPRAISER the right to run over it. WASN't talk about rights TALKING about sharing responsbility

3*I don't think the car would have heard it and moved out of the tractors way.

WASN't talking about a car was TALKing about someone getting hurt
BTW have a nice day LB -ED

 

[LBrown59]

WASN't talking about a car was TALKing about someone getting hurt
BTW have a nice day LB -ED

I was just funnin ya a little ~ didn't ya see the ---->
Have a great day.

 

[LBrown59]

3*This was a small downtown shoe store.
Parking down town here is at a premium and most down town stores don't have anywhere near enough parking for their customers let alone employees.
The parking space was on a down town city street owned by the city not the postal service.
The city clearly had jurisdiction not the postal service.
The city had by ordinance marked it for postal parking only.
4* Nope she was a drunk driver.
She really didn't have a leg to stand on.
== L B ==

.

3. Parking in a postal patron parking space while waiting for your wife to get off of work. Did they not have parking where she worked at. Plus why were the police in the post office parking lot. They gave her a ticket? I hope she got a lawyer the jurisdiction for police officers is kind of hazy. Postal Property is federal property.

4. Was she an elderly lady. It is amazing how often I see elderly people come up to a post office and go to hit the brake and hit the gas instead. I have had to help put up plywood to secure the building a few times where someone has ran into the lobby with their car. It has always been someone elderly.

 

[gemini5362]

3*This was a small downtown shoe store parking down town here is at a premium and most down town stores don't have anywhere near enough parking for their customers let alone employees.
The parking space was on a down town city street owned by the city not the postal service.
The city clearly had jurisdiction not the postal service.
The city had by ordinance marked it for postal parking only.
4* Nope she was a drunk driver.
She really didn't have a leg to stand on.
== L B ==

A drunk driver. I have absolutely no sympathy for a drunk driver.

 

[LBrown59]

A drunk driver. I have absolutely no sympathy for a drunk driver.

== L B ==says
You're rite.
There's absolutely no excuse for it.

 

[Killer_B]

UP,

I assume you were doing this as a favor and not being paid for the work you did. If you were being paid, ignore the rest of this post.

Did the company send you a denial letter? Here in Michigan most homeowner's policies exclude liability:

f. Arising out of: (1)The ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of motor vehicles or all other motorized land conveyances, including trailers, owned or operated by or rented or loaned to an "insured";

But go on to say:

This exclusion does not apply to: (4) A vehicle or conveyance not subject to motor vehicle registration which is: (a) Used to service an "insured's" residence; (b)Designed for assisting the handicapped; or (c)In dead storage on an "insured location";

Here in Michigan, as long as the tractor is used to service your premises (even though the loss occurs elsewhere), the exception (4)(a) to the exclusion (f.) (1) would seem to allow coverage.

Check your policy.

KB

 

[ray66v]

(4)(a) as I read it, argues against your point more than for it. It is a stretch in my mind to think that if a piece of equipment is covered while being used to service the insured's property, that piece of equipment would be covered in some other capacity, (being used for anything other than servicing the insured property). That would leave a giant loop hole allowing equipment to be covered for all kinds of things without the Insurance Carrier being compensated for the additional risk. A hint is the fact that in dead storage the equipment has to be on the Insured's premises to be covered. To me that suggests the coverage is to on premises equipment only.
Or did I totally misunderstand the point?

 

[Killer_B]

Or did I totally misunderstand the point?

Yes.

It's a simple quesion: Is your Kubota used to service your premisis? If so, then (4)(a) applies to you, and exclusion (f) (1) is out the window.

KB

 

[ray66v]

Ok, KB I will have defer to you on that one. I don't know how they write it in Ohio, but, after a big pow wow with my agent, and the underwriters, they said the coverage on my TLB ends at my property line. I can never be sure if they came up with the right verdict.
I think we can both agree they make this language so hardly anyone can understand it.

 

[Red55]

I think we can both agree they make this language so hardly anyone can understand it.[/QUOTE]
YES! Even the lawyers can't agree as to what it means.

LB thanks for letting me know you were kidding. . Thought some bait was being toss my way and didn't want to go for it -Ed

 

[gemini5362]

UP,

I assume you were doing this as a favor and not being paid for the work you did. If you were being paid, ignore the rest of this post.

Did the company send you a denial letter? Here in Michigan most homeowner's policies exclude liability:

f. Arising out of: (1)The ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of motor vehicles or all other motorized land conveyances, including trailers, owned or operated by or rented or loaned to an "insured";

But go on to say:

This exclusion does not apply to: (4) A vehicle or conveyance not subject to motor vehicle registration which is: (a) Used to service an "insured's" residence; (b)Designed for assisting the handicapped; or (c)In dead storage on an "insured location";

Here in Michigan, as long as the tractor is used to service your premises (even though the loss occurs elsewhere), the exception (4)(a) to the exclusion (f.) (1) would seem to allow coverage.

Check your policy.

KB

I had a really nice quote typed out and lost it. Let me try it again.

I had to read this several times to understand what you meant. I think I have it so let me see if I understand. I believe you are saying that the section 4a means that since the tractor is used to service the insureds residence then the liability insurance is in effect even though the use might not be on the insured residence. Is that what you mean ?

If so I look at it a bit differently. I am afraid if i used that arguement on a member of the Academy of Arbitrators in an arbitration The arbitrator would just smile at me and tell me you cannot read one sentence in a vacuum.
You have to read the whole section. I interpret the whole section to mean that if you are using a vehicle that is not subject to motor registration laws on the INSUREDS RESIDENCE no matter where the vehicle came from ( assuming of course it is obtained legally) the Homeowners Liability is in effect. I. E. You rent a backhoe and you are digging a ditch in your backyard. A friend comes over to see you and notices you working in your backyard. They park their car in your yard in front of the backhoe. You take the backhoe and use it to push the tractor forward to extend the ditch. When you push the tractor forward you dont look and you put a huge dent in the side of your friends car with the FEL bucket on the backhoe. In that instance your homeowners liablity insurance would pay for the damage even though you dont own the backhoe and it is not a part of the homeowners policy. 2. Your friend loans you a trailer with his riding lawn mower in it. When you go to unload the riding lawn mower you loose control of it and knock down your neighbors fence which is actually encroaching on your property by 6 inches. Even though the trailer and the riding lawn mower is not your property your liability insurance would be in effect for the repairs. That is the way I interpret the policy exclusions.

The interesting thing is if your church liability policy has the same clause in their liability section. One could make the argument that you loaned your tractor and your service to the church and the accident occured on their property. This might make it fall into that exclusion. It would be a grey area since it mentions insureds residence. I dont know enough about insurance policies to know how that would play out. Of course the church might have to admit that they knew you were working there and that you were not doing it without permission but from your post it looks like they would be happy to do that since you have done it before. Let us know what happens I am curious to find out

 

[Killer_B]

I believe you are saying that the section 4a means that since the tractor is used to service the insureds residence then the liability insurance is in effect even though the use might not be on the insured residence. Is that what you mean ?

That is exactly what it says, and that is exactly what it means.

If the intent was to provide liability coverage on the residence premises only, then (4) (a) would add 'on an "insured location"' just as was added to (4) (c).

But it wasn't, so it isn't.

As far as the language being confusing, I don't find any big or esoteric words used in modern policies. Yes, the world is a complicated place so contractis have to be precise. You have to follow the logic closely, but that's not too difficult, I don't think.

KB

 

[shane]

Galatians 6:9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.


Keep up the good work and don't let the insurance companies bring you down.

 

[Killer_B]

Keep up the good work and don't let the insurance companies bring you down.

Hey Shane,

I doubt the insurance adjuster who made this decision is trying to bring anybody down. His decision may well be the correct one, and very likely it is. My original point was that Upraiser should be sure that he understands the reason for the adjuster's decision. Mistakes are made sometimes, particularly on claims that are not run of the mill, and/or when the adjuster is inexperienced.

Having made my living in claims for over 20 years, I have made my share of bad calls. I am never offended when an insured or his lawyer calls and says "I see where you are coming from, but have you considered this..."

BTW: I always felt Luke 16:1-9 presented a fascinating conundrum for those in my line of work.

KB

 

[tallyho8]

I say it doesn't matter if your homeowners insurance covers it or not. It is not worth it to make a small claim on your homeowners insurance and everyone ought to have at least $1000 deductibles on their policies. If you make 2 claims of any size on your homeowners policy in 3 years, they will cancel your policy and then your new policy will cost thousands of dollars more in the next few years negating any benefits you may have received.