Will Homeowners Insurance Pay on a Claim With No Negligence by the Insured

[Brian57]

It's probably time to stop responding to Brian57. He absolutely does not want to understand how home owner's insurance works and doesn't care to learn.

What I understand is that insurance companies typically refuse to pay, or pay what is fair and just, unless an attorney forces them to pay. Therefore I would believe a personal injury lawyer far before an agent of an insurance co.

[jk]

What I understand is that insurance companies typically refuse to pay, or pay what is fair and just, unless an attorney forces them to pay. Therefore I would believe a personal injury lawyer far before an agent of an insurance co.

An attorney cannot force an insurance company to pay anything. Only a court or the state’s insurance board can force them to pay anything.



It’s hilarious you would accept the word of a pi lawyer (aka ambulance chaser) over an uninvolved insurance person.

[Brian57]

An attorney cannot force an insurance company to pay anything. Only a court or the state’s insurance board can force them to pay anything.



It’s hilarious you would accept the word of a pi lawyer (aka ambulance chaser) over an uninvolved insurance person.

Semantics!

You can believe the pro-prosecution and anti-societal opinions commonly expressed here at face value. I take it all with a grain of salt.

[jk]

Semantics!

You can believe the pro-prosecution and anti-societal opinions commonly expressed here at face value. I take it all with a grain of salt.

No, it’s not semantics. Not only can a lawyer not force an insurance company to pay because they simply don’t have that power, the insurance company isn’t even a party to the suit so there will be no judgment against the insurance company.

[Brian57]

No, it’s not semantics. Not only can a lawyer not force an insurance company to pay because they simply don’t have that power, the insurance company isn’t even a party to the suit so there will be no judgment against the insurance company.

Oh really? Insurance companies do not have attorneys that defend their interests?

How do you even write this stuff? Because you have five guys in your corner to back you up?

[llworking]

Oh really? Insurance companies do not have attorneys that defend their interests?

How do you even write this stuff? Because you have five guys in your corner to back you up?

One cannot sue an insurance company in this kind of instance. One has to sue the person who was negligent and caused the damage. Now, the insurance company will, if they feel that the alleged claim falls under the correct perimeters, provide their insured with an attorney to defend the case or negotiate the case, whichever is appropriate, but if there is a judgement issued, it will be issued against the insured, not against the insurance company. That isn't semantics, its simply facts.

[Brian57]

One cannot sue an insurance company in this kind of instance. One has to sue the person who was negligent and caused the damage. Now, the insurance company will, if they feel that the alleged claim falls under the correct perimeters, provide their insured with an attorney to defend the case or negotiate the case, whichever is appropriate, but if there is a judgement issued, it will be issued against the insured, not against the insurance company. That isn't semantics, its simply facts.

"Semantics" was in response to me saying that a person needs an attorney to make an insurance co pay what is fair and just. Of course an attorney cannot "force" anyone do anything, but they can persuade an insurance company.

Hence semantics.

[jk]

Oh really? Insurance companies do not have attorneys that defend their interests?

How do you even write this stuff? Because you have five guys in your corner to back you up?

No. They have attorneys that represent the insured. It ultimately can benefit the insurance company but it is the insureds attorney. Do you really believe the attorney standing next to the defendant could be there if he was not representing the actual defendant?

Here’s some “show me” for you. This is from the California jury instructions dealing with premises liability.

1000. Premises Liability—Essential Factual Elements
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed because of the way [name of defendant] managed [his/her/its] property. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of defendant] [owned/leased/occupied/controlled] the property;
2. That [name of defendant] was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property;
3. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
4. That [name of defendant]’s negligence was a substantial factor in
causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

take note of #2 and #4. Notice the word: negligence. Notice that the instructions state the negligence is what allows liability to be placed upon the defendant. That means no negligence, no liability.

That proves negligence is required and it proves you are wrong.

Also notice that in this excerpt from sources and authority (describes from where the instructions were derived) it is clearly stated that premises liability is based on negligence.



• “Since Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561], the liability of landowners for injuries to people on their property has been governed by general negligence principles.” (Pineda v. Ennabe (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1407 [72 Cal.Rptr.2d 206].)
• “Premises liability is a form of negligence based on the holding in Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d 108, and is described as follows: The owner of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.” (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619 [264 Cal.Rptr. 756].

[llworking]

"Semantics" was in response to me saying that a person needs an attorney to make an insurance co pay what is fair and just. Of course an attorney cannot "force" anyone do anything, but they can persuade an insurance company.

Hence semantics.

Once again, an attorney cannot make an insurance company pay anything at all. An attorney can only get a judgment against an insured. If an insurance company still declines coverage for an incident, then the insured has to pay out of their own pocket.

[Brian57]

Once again, an attorney cannot make an insurance company pay anything at all. An attorney can only get a judgment against an insured. If an insurance company still declines coverage for an incident, then the insured has to pay out of their own pocket.

Very profound post! Please, teach me more...I'm in such need.