Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The scenarioo is this: A neighbor has a trampoline, one of the neighborhood kids playing on it hurt himself and his parents are suing my neighbor for the medical costs related to their childs injury. This is all academic to me. I was just wondering why the homeowners insurance would cover this sort of incident. Kids playing, kid gets hurt, insurance companies involved? I don't get it. Is the reasoning because the homeowners would be considered negligent? The kids ages are all ~16.
This is the problem with America today. Everyone sues everyone.
And in this case the kids are 16, are you kidding me! If my kid got hurt playing on a tramboline at the age of 16, the liability would be on him, not the homeowner.
The scenarioo is this: A neighbor has a trampoline, one of the neighborhood kids playing on it hurt himself and his parents are suing my neighbor for the medical costs related to their childs injury. This is all academic to me. I was just wondering why the homeowners insurance would cover this sort of incident. Kids playing, kid gets hurt, insurance companies involved? I don't get it. Is the reasoning because the homeowners would be considered negligent? The kids ages are all ~16.
The scenarioo is this: A neighbor has a trampoline, one of the neighborhood kids playing on it hurt himself and his parents are suing my neighbor for the medical costs related to their childs injury. This is all academic to me. I was just wondering why the homeowners insurance would cover this sort of incident. Kids playing, kid gets hurt, insurance companies involved? I don't get it. Is the reasoning because the homeowners would be considered negligent? The kids ages are all ~16.
You don't "sue" to have your medical bills paid under HO. If someone is injured on your property, those bills are covered up to a certain limit (depends on the policy-I believe it's usually $5,000 but don't quote me on that). If these people are suing, it's for "pain and suffering" and that is covered under the liability portion of the HO policy.
If someone is injured on your property, and they sue you becuase of it, that's when your liability coverage kicks in. Why else do you think HO policies provide liability coverage?
These people can probably expect to get dropped by their insurer unless the HO company knew about the trampoline and wrote the coverage anyway. I wish them luck finding new coverage, it's d@mn near impossible once you've had a claim like this.
You don't "sue" to have your medical bills paid under HO. If someone is injured on your property, those bills are covered up to a certain limit (depends on the policy-I believe it's usually $5,000 but don't quote me on that). If these people are suing, it's for "pain and suffering" and that is covered under the liability portion of the HO policy.
If someone is injured on your property, and they sue you becuase of it, that's when your liability coverage kicks in. Why else do you think HO policies provide liability coverage?
These people can probably expect to get dropped by their insurer unless the HO company knew about the trampoline and wrote the coverage anyway. I wish them luck finding new coverage, it's d@mn near impossible once you've had a claim like this.
Thanks for the clear explanation. The part I don't get is why would the insurance company payout because someone is injured on the property? Is it as broad as you have described? There must be some conditions that must be met before the claim can be considered.
There has to be liability on the homeowner. New York is a comparative negigence state, which means that even if you are only 1% at fault for an accident - you pay that 1%.
I'm not that familiar with HO liability but my guess is a trampoline falls under the same sort of liability scenario as a swimming pool -attractive nuisance, and so likely to cause an injury that if you have one in your yard, you have to know that you are putting yourself at risk of a claim.
The final arbiter of what an injury is "worth" is always a jury - but since so few claims ever actually get before a jury, when you are handling these types of claims (like I do) you have to ask yourself, what would a jury find? There are many things that come into play when asking that question...venue (is this the Bronx where juries hand out money like candy, or is it Suffolk, which doesn't?), what are the parties involved like (are the professional claimants? are they nice upstanding people or are they dirtbaggy? would you even want to put them before a jury?) etc etc.
It's interesting but annoying, all at the same time, LOL
The scenarioo is this: A neighbor has a trampoline, one of the neighborhood kids playing on it hurt himself and his parents are suing my neighbor for the medical costs related to their childs injury. This is all academic to me. I was just wondering why the homeowners insurance would cover this sort of incident. Kids playing, kid gets hurt, insurance companies involved? I don't get it. Is the reasoning because the homeowners would be considered negligent? The kids ages are all ~16.
To get the insurance coverage with the trampoline the homeowners probably signed a waiver with the insurance company regarding the trampoline -- so the insurance company is not covering the medical bills because the injury was incurred on the trampoline and they are suing the homeowner for the cost of medical treatment.
Thanks for the clear explanation. The part I don't get is why would the insurance company payout because someone is injured on the property? Is it as broad as you have described? There must be some conditions that must be met before the claim can be considered.
There does have to be a theory of liability and negligence. Somebody falling on your property doesn't make you negligent. If they trip on a loose paver, or fall in a hole you should have filled and break an ankle, different story.
Trampolines are singled out by insurance companies because there have been enough incidents with them to make them considered inherently dangerous. My policy doesn't cover trampolines. So, merely setting one up creates liability... if you put in a pool, it's considered an attractive nuisance, so you need a fence around it. A trampoline carries it's own issues.
Now, the question would be... did the parent of the minor who got hurt know they were on the trampoline and give permission? Was there supposed to be supervision, was there supervision? If the parent knew about it, and assumed the risk along with the homeowner, that might help the homeowner's case. Odds are, if somehow they are covered by their insurance, they'll just pay out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.