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

Know Your Rights: Money/Remedy at Law vs. Equitable Relief

When you bring a lawsuit (or some other kind of action or proceeding) in court, you are asking the court to give you some kind of relief. Generally speaking, that relief is either money (called "damages" or "money damages" or a "remedy at law") or equitable relief. Everyone knows what money is. What is "equitable relief"? It is relief other than money. Some examples of equitable relief (or "relief at equity" or an "equitable remedy") are:  specific performance of a contract -- you entered into a contract with another party for them to do something; they failed to do it; you sue them to force them to perform as they agreed to in the contract an injunction -- you bring an action to make another party do something or stop doing something rescission of contract -- you entered into a contract; you believe there is a problem with the contract, or the other side committed fraud, or the other side can't perform its oblig...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Employment Contract Enforceable Against Employer Even Though Not Signed

The plaintiff is a modeling scout. Defendant modeling agency decided to hire him as a modeling scout for $190,000/year, plus bonuses. An employment contract was prepared. One provision of the contact said that if the plaintiff were ever fired without cause, he would be entitled to 6-months severance ($95,000). The contract also said that it could be signed in counterparts. The plaintiff signed the contract on August 18, 2015 and emailed his signature to the modeling agency. One of the agency's board members emailed back, saying "Welcome aboard. We'll countersign over the next few days." But no one from the agency ever signed the contract. Nevertheless, the plaintiff began working as a modeling scout, and the agency paid him according to the contract. But after six months, the agency decided to terminate him, without cause. The agency then refused to pay him the $95,000 severance, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for breach of contract. The modeling agency m...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Contractor Entitled to be Paid For Extra Work Not Part of Original Contract

On September 12, 2013, the Town of Kent (Putnam County) entered into a contract with a contractor to build a sewer.  During construction, certain "conditions that were unexpected and unanticipated" arose, requiring the contractor to do "extra" work--things beyond the scope of work of the original contract. (The appeals court doesn't detail what this extra work was.) The contractor performed the extra work, totaling around $380,000 in additional costs. For reasons not stated by the appeals court, the Town refused to pay for this extra work, and the contractor eventually sued the Town in May, 2015.  The contractor moved for summary judgment in the lower court (a kind of mini-trial on paper), and the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractor for the $380,000.  The Town appealed, but the appeals court sided with the contractor, saying that even though this "extra" work was not within the scope of work of the original contract, the con...
Post a Comment
Read more