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

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

The Germanwings Tragedy and Claims for Negligent Retention

There has been a lot of news about the terrible crash of Germanwings Flight 9525, which resulted in the death of 150 people when the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, (apparently) intentionally crashed the plane into the French Alps. Reports are that Lubitz had suicidal tendencies and had been declared medically unfit to fly . What may soon follow are lawsuits against Germanwings and Lufthansa (which owns Germanwings) for claims similar to what New York calls "negligent retention": A claim for negligent supervision or retention arises when an employer places an employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which the injured party most probably would have been spared had the employer taken reasonable care in supervising or retaining the employee. Vione v. Tewell,  12 Mic.3d 973, 979, 820 N.Y.S.2d 682 (Sup.Ct., New York County, 2006). Under New York law, a claim for negligent hiring, supervision or retention, "in addition to the standard elements of negligence,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Fraud: Dog "Rescue" Operation Shut Down and Ordered to Pay Restitution

News 12 recently had a story  about a Calverton dog "rescue" operation that was shut down and ordered to repay $24,000 in restitution for "selling" sick dogs. This was a type of fraud on consumers. The allegations  were that the two women who operated Precious Pups Rescue "pulled"/obtained dogs that had health issues from in-state and out-of-state shelters, then sold the dogs to consumers by way of "adoption fees" or "donations" of $200 to $600 per dog. The owners of Precious Pups Rescue told consumers that the dogs were healthy  and had been checked out by a vet when that was not true. The new owners were then faced with thousands of dollars in vet bills: Zambito and Torrillo-Hooghkirk sold consumers dogs that they claimed were healthy, vaccinated, spayed or neutered, and evaluated by a veterinarian, when in fact, they were not. In fact, the dogs had visible signs of illness, such as coughing, scratching, matting and sores. After...
Post a Comment
Read more