US Insurance company

[Mark Newton]

I have had some moments of irritation when reading occasional comments implying insurance companies never pay up (we certainly don't unless you can produce a receipt for the third Rolex you've had 'stolen'), but this news item indicates that an unprecedented low has been reached in the USA

Insurer arguing pollution caused fire deaths
© 2008 The Associated Press
Dec. 17, 2008, 5:22PM

HOUSTON — An insurance company is arguing in court that a policy it issued that excludes payments for pollution prevents the families of three people killed in a 2007 Houston office building fire from being compensated because the deaths were caused by smoke inhalation and not the actual flames.
Great American Insurance Co. has asked U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal in Houston to rule that the deaths caused by the smoke, fumes and soot will not be covered by the policy because there is a specific exclusion for pollution and it mentions smoke, fumes and soot.
A court hearing in the case is set for February.
"This is shocking. It's an extraordinary effort by an insurance company to avoid paying on a contract for insurance," Randy Sorrels, an attorney for several families in wrongful death lawsuits from the fire, said in Wednesday's Houston Chronicle.
Great American spokeswoman Diane Weidner said the company does not comment on pending litigation.
Smoke from the blaze killed 52-year-old Jeanette Hargrove of Friendswood, and Houston residents 46-year-old Marvin Wells Sr. and 38-year-old Shana Ellis.
In October, Misty Ann Weaver, a nurse, pleaded guilty to three counts of felony murder and one count of first-degree arson. She was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Weaver admitted she set the fire to hide that she had not completed some paperwork on time for her boss, a cosmetic surgeon, and feared she might lose her job.
Great American's potential liability in the case is $25 million.
Don Jackson, the Houston lawyer for building owners Boxer Property Management Corp., said the insurance company that has the primary $1 million policy on the building hasn't made this argument.
"We think it is wrong. It's inappropriate for the insurance company to try to run and hide now," Jackson said.
Seth Chandler, a University of Houston Law Center professor who teaches insurance law, said the insurance company's move will test the limits of the law.
"This is pushing the boundaries of the absolute pollution exclusion," Chandler said. "We're going to have a battle between the literal language of the policy and the way people speak of pollution."

[nearlythere]

I have had some moments of irritation when reading occasional comments implying insurance companies never pay up (we certainly don't unless you can produce a receipt for the third Rolex you've had 'stolen'), but this news item indicates that an unprecedented low has been reached in the USA

Insurer arguing pollution caused fire deaths
© 2008 The Associated Press
Dec. 17, 2008, 5:22PM

HOUSTON — An insurance company is arguing in court that a policy it issued that excludes payments for pollution prevents the families of three people killed in a 2007 Houston office building fire from being compensated because the deaths were caused by smoke inhalation and not the actual flames.
Great American Insurance Co. has asked U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal in Houston to rule that the deaths caused by the smoke, fumes and soot will not be covered by the policy because there is a specific exclusion for pollution and it mentions smoke, fumes and soot.
A court hearing in the case is set for February.
"This is shocking. It's an extraordinary effort by an insurance company to avoid paying on a contract for insurance," Randy Sorrels, an attorney for several families in wrongful death lawsuits from the fire, said in Wednesday's Houston Chronicle.
Great American spokeswoman Diane Weidner said the company does not comment on pending litigation.
Smoke from the blaze killed 52-year-old Jeanette Hargrove of Friendswood, and Houston residents 46-year-old Marvin Wells Sr. and 38-year-old Shana Ellis.
In October, Misty Ann Weaver, a nurse, pleaded guilty to three counts of felony murder and one count of first-degree arson. She was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Weaver admitted she set the fire to hide that she had not completed some paperwork on time for her boss, a cosmetic surgeon, and feared she might lose her job.
Great American's potential liability in the case is $25 million.
Don Jackson, the Houston lawyer for building owners Boxer Property Management Corp., said the insurance company that has the primary $1 million policy on the building hasn't made this argument.
"We think it is wrong. It's inappropriate for the insurance company to try to run and hide now," Jackson said.
Seth Chandler, a University of Houston Law Center professor who teaches insurance law, said the insurance company's move will test the limits of the law.
"This is pushing the boundaries of the absolute pollution exclusion," Chandler said. "We're going to have a battle between the literal language of the policy and the way people speak of pollution."

Would Great American Insurance Co. also argue that it is not fire that kills people but the heat that a fire produces?
Maybe I have given them an idea?

[Mike Buckley]

Reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where there was a car insurance policy which fully covered you until you had an accident.

At this level how many people are actually killed by the fire? Discount those killed by the smoke and gases (pollution), heat (loss of fluids due to burns and medical negligence [they couldn't save him]), building collapse........ the list could be endless.

Just like falling off a building the fall won't kill you its hitting the ground that does the damage.

[nearlythere]

Not sure if it is still the case but in UK if someone dies trying to escape from a fire, eg. fall from window, it is not classed as a fire death.

[afterburner]

would not escaping from the fire be listed on the death certificate as a contributory factor? As in the listed causes e.g.
 
(a) broken this or that causing failure of other this's and that's
(b) fall from window and impact on unyielding and unforgiving surface
(c) escaping from a fire

[nearlythere]

would not escaping from the fire be listed on the death certificate as a contributory factor? As in the listed causes e.g.
 
(a) broken this or that causing failure of other this's and that's
(b) fall from window and impact on unyielding and unforgiving surface
(c) escaping from a fire

Probably but the ODPM, or whatever it is now, won't put it down as a fire fatality.
Unless things have changed within the last small number of years. Anybody?

[Chris Houston]

I don't understand this. If it is a "fire policy" then that is a "material damage to property" policy and I would not be anticipating a liability claim to made on it. That would be a "public liability" policy. But for someone to sue (in the UK) anyway, there would need to be negligence proven on behalf of the policy holder. I see no allegation of this. It should not automatically follow that someone gets sued when someone dies on your premises unless you have done something wrong to cause their death and we should applaud those who resist such litigation. 

[Willo]

Surely just as disturbing thing is the reason for the fire?

Weaver admitted she set the fire to hide that she had not completed some paperwork on time for her boss, a cosmetic surgeon, and feared she might lose her job.

I can understand it after someone gets sacked but to do it because they are worried they might be? Lunacy.