Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: Minor resonsible for house fire?
My sons friend smoked a cigarette in our garage that then caused our house to catch on fire. It was an accident. Now my Q is our insurance is telling us they will be going after her and her family cause she is just 17. Is this normal? Now what would have happened if it was my son cigarette that started the fire?
I thought i posted this as a guest yet i cant see it... so sorry if the this is already posted.
Here is the thing... just smoking a cigarette obviously does not cause a house to burn down and this is an important point. I'm betting what that person did with the cigarette is what caused the house to burn down. I'm also betting that there is probably some negligence in this action.
Question... if I burned down your house would you want me to pay for it or would you simply pay for it out of your own pocket (no insurance involved)? The insurance companies feels the same way about these matters. Most likely they are going to see if the other party has any type of liability insurance to address the matter. Granted, even if they don't, your carrier may still pursue recovery but probably not as aggressively... it really depends on the carrier.
So yes, it is normal.
If your son started the fire, he is basically an "insured" under the policy and an insured cannot be liable to an insured.
I'm also betting that there is probably some negligence in this action.
Quite true!
A cigarette has to be directed in that order to be able to burn down your house. a cigarette does not have that potential to burn down a house unless it comes in contact with a catalyst. _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
You have mentioned over here that an insured cannot be liable under such circumstances. But do I suppose, that the insurer would have the authority to conduct an investigation (under the circumstances) in order to eliminate the possibilities of foul play?
Thanks,
Plasticmind _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: thanks everyone!
The cig was tossed in a garbage can near the dryer that had lint. EVERYTHING in the garage is gone so they dont know 100% that it was that they just think that is what happen since she smoked 30 min before the house started to burn. Thanks for the info. Her family rents and does carry there own insurance, so we will see.
Now my Q is our insurance is telling us they will be going after her and her family cause she is just 17. Is this normal?
yep, with the two carriers I've worked for....most certainly.
This could get a little sticky too, because 'technically' the smoker was breaking the law (commiting an unlawful act which could get it denied by their carrier) as it's illegal to smoke until you are 18 right? This one could get very interesting... _________________ Have you been helped by a poster? Do you want to show your appreciation? YOU CAN !! Just simply click on the donate button and send them some coin!
This could get a little sticky too, because 'technically' the smoker was breaking the law (commiting an unlawful act which could get it denied by their carrier) as it's illegal to smoke until you are 18 right?
Naw. The illegal act of smoking was not what caused the fire and is unrelated. Had the person been commiting arson at the time, then yes. That is, it was the action of putting the cig in the trash that caused the fire and this is not illegal.
Wow two different outlooks here. I wonder which one they will look at. Since it was the act of smoking that started this chain reaction and then the tossing of the cigarette into the trash wouldn't it still come back to what Lori said?
It was not the smoking that caused the fire, it was putting the cig in the trash.
It depends (IMO) how bad the claimant carrier wants to deny the claim...because ''smoking'' (illegally so) did set the chain of events into motion...had there been no smoking, which technically in this case could only occur illegally, then there would've been no fire...i admit it's a stretch, and one as an adjuster I seriously doubt I would take, it is however (IMO) a question that could be raised in defense of a denial. _________________ Have you been helped by a poster? Do you want to show your appreciation? YOU CAN !! Just simply click on the donate button and send them some coin!
Person is driving a vehicle w/o a drivers license and hits someone. The claim won't be deny because the person did not have a valid license even thought it's illegal for them to drive. It's not the act of driving illegally that caused the accident. Same thing.
tcope i thought she liked us!??? no way.....(however I was on my way to a paralegal degree, and got a promotion at work so gave it up about 3/4 of the way thru)...
Quote:
It's not the act of driving illegally that caused the accident. Same thing
I disagree, (with the comparison, only not about the no license)....but that's cool....and I think there might be a small hill to climb, but I still think that a carrier could were they so inclined, use the 'illegal' act exclusion to get out of the liablity payment of this claim.... _________________ Have you been helped by a poster? Do you want to show your appreciation? YOU CAN !! Just simply click on the donate button and send them some coin!
Lori, I must point out that it's not necessarily illegal for a minor to smoke a cigarette.
Ohio's tobacco law states that it's illegal for mechants to sell tobacco to minors but there is no law against minors possesing or consuming tobacco products.
no way.....(however I was on my way to a paralegal degree, and got a promotion at work so gave it up about 3/4 of the way thru)...
