Grandson Residing on Property Was an “Insured” for Purposes of Policy’s “Intentional Loss” Exclusion

Originally published by Francisco Garcia.

In property insurance coverage disputes, whether or not someone is considered an “Insured” depends on a variety of factors. The first step is to look to the language of the governing insurance policy to see how an “Insured” is defined. Often, however, the answer to this question turns on the facts surrounding any given claim – and may not be as obvious as one may think.

I recently came across a federal court Memorandum and Order in Pennsylvania which demonstrates just how fact-intensive the issue of who is considered an “insured” can be. The case, Ripley v. Brethren Mutual Insurance Company,1 stemmed from an insurance claim for more than $50,000.00 in stolen personal property. During an inspection, the Ripley’s explained to an insurance company investigator that their grandson—who had lived on their thirty-acre working horse farm for over two and a half years—admitted he participated in the theft by letting two men into the house…

.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/19elLpd

via Abogado Aly Website