Skip to main content

Insurance Company Won't Cover Fire Damage Because of Pit Bull

News 12 had a story that a woman's house was severely damaged by fire caused by her dryer. She had homeowner's insurance, but when she put in a claim for the fire damage, the claim was denied because the insurance company said she had a pit bull, and the insurance company doesn't cover homes with pit bulls.

The story gets even stranger because there is apparently a letter with her signature saying she doesn't have any pets. The homeowner says she didn't sign the letter. Which, if true, could be bad (possible fraud by the broker).

This is the area of law known as insurance coverage. It is based on the idea (in my opinion) that insurance companies want you to pay your high monthly premiums, but when you file a claim, they will look for any excuse to deny it.

Do insurance companies have an interest in not covering homes with pit bulls in them? Yes, simply as a consideration of risk--based on the reputation of pit bulls, that they can be aggressive and may be more prone to biting people than other dogs, which means that house is an increased risk for things like dog bite claims.

Did the pit bull in this case have any role in causing the fire? Probably not. Does that fact weigh in favor of the homeowner? Probably, but I would have to see all the policy documents.

I won't comment on the possible fraud. That opens up its own can of worms.

I have successfully settled and won favorable decisions from judges in insurance coverage cases for clients. Sometimes you, as the consumer, have to sue the insurance company; sometimes the insurance company sues you to get out of coverage. But if the insurance company sues you, and you win, they pay your attorney fees.

If you believe your insurance company has wrongfully denied a claim, contact me at 516-252-9500 or at greg@gcurrylaw.com.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Court Finds Breach of Contract of Oral Agreement/Loan

In November, 2014, plaintiff and defendant agreed that the plaintiff would loan the defendant $200,000, and the defendant would pay him back in 4 installments of $50,000 over the next year. The defendant made the first 3 payments (totaling $150,000), but not the last payment. The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract for the remaining $50,000. There was nothing in writing, just an oral agreement. It appears that as soon as the defendant served his "Answer" to the "Complaint", the plaintiff moved for summary judgment (a kind of mini-trial on paper). The evidence included the cancelled check for $200,000 and the records of payments totaling $150,000. The appeals court held that, although there was nothing in writing, the oral agreement was enforceable as a contract and held that the plaintiff had proven his breach of contract claim.  The defendant had argued it was too early in the case to decide such a motion, that more evidence needed to be gathered (called...
Post a Comment
Read more