Re: Tenant died: Should insurance pay?

[Guest guest]

I just couldn't wait to respond to this one!

Absolutely these people were right to file wrongful

death. Whether the insurance cover the claim or not is

irrelevant to the extent that the wrongful death suit

will hold up on it's own. The owners and company could

have to pay out of property, pocket, or other ways.

These people spraying this G-d forsaken chemical mess

need to be accountable. So many are even spraying

without license, spraying in precious little

childrenss play areas, and spraying things that are

illegal to use, over spraying, not adequately

ventilating, and could " CARELESS " if it kills you!

This careless attitude may bring the wrath of G-d down

on all of us. Certainly it is the insurance companies.

They lie, they get caught.

IF I WAS THE JUDGE WHICH I WOULD LOVE TO BE ON SOME OF

THESE CASES I WOULD TELL THE DEFENSE:

You best better try and work something out with this

girl's parent's and quick, or your clients, may end up

in bankruptcy court or worse homeless themselves.

Certainly wouldn't help your reputation as the hot

shot lawyer you think you are. JUDGEMENT FOR THE

PLAINTIFF!!!

NTMC

--- bherk@... wrote:

>

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/realestate/orl-homeslaw21042102apr21.story

>

> Tenant died: Should insurance pay?

> By Bruss

> Tribune Media Services

>

> April 21, 2002

>

> The case history: and Christel own an apartment

> building where

> was a resident. She asked the landlords to spray to

> eradicate yellow jackets

> in the building. Her landlords hired a licensed pest

> control exterminator

> who sprayed the property several times.

>

> became ill and died as a result of the

> toxic spraying. Her parents

> filed a wrongful death lawsuit against and

> Christel, as well as the

> pest control company.

>

> The landlords turned the defense of their lawsuit

> over to their rental

> property insurance company.

>

> After investigation, the insurer denied insurance

> protection to and

> Christel.

>

> The insurance representative pointed to the policy

> pollution exclusion

> clause, which reads: " We do not cover bodily injury

> or property damage

> resulting from the actual, alleged or threatened

> discharge, dispersal,

> release or escape of pollutants at or from any site

> or location on which you

> or any contractors or subcontractors working

> directly or indirectly on your

> behalf are performing operations if the pollutants

> are brought on or to the

> site or location by you or for you. "

>

> and Christel sued their insurer for breach of

> contract. They argued the

> comprehensive liability insurance policy was

> purchased so they would be

> covered for unexpected liability, such as 's

> death because of the

> spraying.

>

> The question: If you were the judge, would you order

> the insurance company

> to provide insurance coverage to the landlords for

> tenant 's death

> because of the toxic spraying?

>

> The decision: The judge said no.

>

> An insurer is entitled to exclude coverage for

> specified causes, the judge

> began. Most comprehensive general liability policies

> now exclude coverage

> for damages because of pollution, he noted.

>

> This insurance policy defines pollution or

> pollutants as " any solid, liquid,

> gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant,

> including smoke, vapor, soot,

> fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste

> materials, " the judge said.

>

> 's unfortunate death was because of exposure

> to such pollutants used

> to spray to eradicate the yellow jackets, the judge

> said.

>

> Because and Christel's insurance policy

> excludes premises coverage for

> injury or damage due to irritants and contaminants,

> as well as chemicals,

> the liability insurer has no duty to provide a

> defense to the lawsuit or to

> pay damages, the judge concluded.

>

> Based on the 2002 California Court of Appeal

> decision in MacKinnon vs. Truck

> Insurance Exchange, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 369.

> Copyright © 2002, Orlando Sentinel

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Just couldn't help commenting: "IF I WAS THE JUDGE" should be, 'IF I WERE THE JUDGE' . This is an example of the future perfect tense. Often, songs, from plays, can help with grammar. The song, "If I were a rich man..." from Fiddler on the Roof, exemplifies this. No offense meant, but this is one of my favorite points of grammar.

I just couldn't wait to respond to this one!Absolutely these people were right to file wrongfuldeath. Whether the insurance cover the claim or not isirrelevant to the extent that the wrongful death suitwill hold up on it's own. The owners and company couldhave to pay out of property, pocket, or other ways. These people spraying this G-d forsaken chemical messneed to be accountable. So many are even sprayingwithout license, spraying in precious littlechildrenss play areas, and spraying things that areillegal to use, over spraying, not adequatelyventilating, and could "CARELESS" if it kills you!This careless attitude may bring the wrath of G-d downon all of us. Certainly it is the insurance companies.They lie, they get caught. IF I WAS THE JUDGE WHICH I WOULD LOVE TO BE ON SOME OFTHESE CASES I WOULD TELL THE DEFENSE:You best better try and work something out with thisgirl's parent's and quick, or your clients, may end upin bankruptcy court or worse homeless themselves.Certainly wouldn't help your reputation as the hotshot lawyer you think you are. JUDGEMENT FOR THEPLAINTIFF!!! NTMC--- bherk@... wrote:>http://www.orlandosentinel.com/realestate/orl-homeslaw21042102apr21.story> > Tenant died: Should insurance pay?> By Bruss> Tribune Media Services> > April 21, 2002> > The case history: and Christel own an apartment> building where > was a resident. She asked the landlords to spray to> eradicate yellow jackets> in the building. Her landlords hired a licensed pest> control exterminator> who sprayed the property several times.> > became ill and died as a result of the> toxic spraying. Her parents> filed a wrongful death lawsuit against and> Christel, as well as the> pest control company.> > The landlords turned the defense of their lawsuit> over to their rental> property insurance company.> > After investigation, the insurer denied insurance> protection to and> Christel.> > The insurance representative pointed to the policy> pollution exclusion> clause, which reads: "We do not cover bodily injury> or property damage> resulting from the actual, alleged or threatened> discharge, dispersal,> release or escape of pollutants at or from any site> or location on which you> or any contractors or subcontractors working> directly or indirectly on your> behalf are performing operations if the pollutants> are brought on or to the> site or location by you or for you."> > and Christel sued their insurer for breach of> contract. They argued the> comprehensive liability insurance policy was> purchased so they would be> covered for unexpected liability, such as 's> death because of the> spraying.> > The question: If you were the judge, would you order> the insurance company> to provide insurance coverage to the landlords for> tenant 's death> because of the toxic spraying?> > The decision: The judge said no.> > An insurer is entitled to exclude coverage for> specified causes, the judge> began. Most comprehensive general liability policies> now exclude coverage> for damages because of pollution, he noted.> > This insurance policy defines pollution or> pollutants as "any solid, liquid,> gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant,> including smoke, vapor, soot,> fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste> materials," the judge said.> > 's unfortunate death was because of exposure> to such pollutants used> to spray to eradicate the yellow jackets, the judge> said.> > Because and Christel's insurance policy> excludes premises coverage for> injury or damage due to irritants and contaminants,> as well as chemicals,> the liability insurer has no duty to provide a> defense to the lawsuit or to> pay damages, the judge concluded.> > Based on the 2002 California Court of Appeal> decision in MacKinnon vs. Truck> Insurance Exchange, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 369.> Copyright © 2002, Orlando Sentinel> > __________________________________________________