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

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: 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