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

[Brian57]

Not true. For one to be legally liable for injury or damage to others one must be negligent. Just lending a tool or ladder to somebody else does not make one liable for injury or damage to the other person unless one lends a tool or ladder knowing it is defective.

I am a 'show me' kinda guy. I'd like to see a case where a HO policy did not cover the costs when a borrowed lawnmower that is being used by a neighbor threw a rock at a neighbor's Ferrari and put a $20,000 chip in the paint or took somebody's eye out. (hypothetical examples of course)

You say there is zero negligence in the OP's case so an HO policy will not pay. I highly doubt it and would like to be shown otherwise. Got any actual examples to back your position?

[free9man]

There is zero negligence on the OP's part because they were not the ones operating the snowblower, assuming the snowblower was in proper working order and not defective. If the neighbor could prove some defect caused the snowblower to throw the rock at the car that the OP knew about and did not disclose, as opposed to their own negligent operation of the snowblower, there might be an argument for at least partial liability on OP's part.

[Brian57]

There is zero negligence on the OP's part because they were not the ones operating the snowblower, assuming the snowblower was in proper working order and not defective. If the neighbor could prove some defect caused the snowblower to throw the rock at the car that the OP knew about and did not disclose, as opposed to their own negligent operation of the snowblower, there might be an argument for at least partial liability on OP's part.

Prove that negligence is required.

Where is the negligence in covering the damage a leaking copper pipe causes?

From my experience, any damage that real estate causes to a person or a person's property, as long as it was an accident and not intensional or criminal, is covered.

By 'real estate' I mean the structure and its holdings, furniture, guns, bikes, etc. (DMV motor vehicles excluded)

Furthermore, if a painter fell off a ladder on your property, the owner is likely responsible. However, if that painter is licensed he cannot sue the HO. If the painter is not licensed he can sue but the HO will quickly discover that his HO policy exempts the insurance company for being responsible for the suit/claim. That is why you do not hire unlicensed contractors. Negligence is not the decider of who is liable.

IMO, the owner of the snowblower is liable for the accidental damage it caused. That is why you don't loan out your stuff, and why contractors don't loan our their tools and ladders. But who would hire lawyers and press the issue all the way to a courtroom in the snowblower case?

[cbg]

You say there is zero negligence in the OP's case so an HO policy will not pay. I highly doubt it and would like to be shown otherwise. Got any actual examples to back your position?

How about you? Got any examples where a homeowner's policy did pay out? In a case where the only connection the homeowner had to the accident is that they'd loaned the one who caused the damage the tool?

[Brian57]

You say there is zero negligence in the OP's case so an HO policy will not pay. I highly doubt it and would like to be shown otherwise. Got any actual examples to back your position?

How about you? Got any examples where a homeowner's policy did pay out? In a case where the only connection the homeowner had to the accident is that they'd loaned the one who caused the damage the tool?

He made the claim...he can back it up.

Us contractors do not loan our tools for a reason. Prove us wrong. Or, comment on the unlicensed contractor falling off the ladder. There is a lot for you to bite into.

[cbg]

But the OP's father is not a contractor. It's not a comparable situation.

[jk]

IMO, the owner of the snowblower is liable for the accidental damage it caused. That is why you don't loan out your stuff. But who would hire lawyers and press the issue all the way to a courtroom?

the snowblower caused no damage. The operator used the machine in a manner the snowblower ejected a stone ergo the negligence in on the user, maybe. Even the operator may not be seen as acting negligently. It would depend on all of the facts at hand. If true, the injured party is simply out of luck and has to pay for the damages themselves.


Your ideas are very lacking in validity. This is a perfect example;

Negligence is not the decider of who is liable.

you are wrong, at least in the intent of your statement. Actually a court is the decider but negligence is why a person would be liable for injuries caused by their actions.


An example (and you are free to look up examples to verify my statement but I won’t bother since you wouldn’t believe me anyway)

let’s consider a person driving a car down the road. They believe themselves to be in perfect health; no issues or concerns. No symptoms of any illness or disease.

They have a sudden heart attack. They hit another car on the road then veer off and hit a pedestrian, hit a telephone pole and then hit a house.

Care to guess which damages the driver of the car (the first car mentioned) is liable for? How about none. If you doubt it research sudden medical emergency car accident.

the reason the driver is not liable is they are not considered to have been negligent and therefor not liable.

The isssue with the painter falls under entirely different laws. Employment and labor law is what could make a homeowner liable for injuries incurred on their property while in the employ of the homeowner. Hiring a contractor helps avoid the homeowner establishing an employee employer relationship and that is how liability is generally avoided.
There is still a possibility of liability due to general duties a homeowner owes to guests and invitees but that is a very fact specific discussion. There is no blanket liability simply because somebody got hurt on their property. There are possible defenses, depending on all the facts of the situation.

Where is the negligence in covering the damage a leaking copper pipe causes?

your question is very ill defined. If you are speaking of a situation such as a condo and a ruptured pipe caused water damage in a unit below, well, the upper unit owner may very well not be liable if they had no reason to believe their plumbing was about to rupture as they were not negligent. If they were aware the pipes in their unit are at he end of their life expectancy, shown by having had to repair leaks due to worn out pipes previously, then they may be deemed negligent and as such, liable for the damage. If you care to define a complete scenario your statement can be more accurately addressed.

[llworking]

I am a 'show me' kinda guy. I'd like to see a case where a HO policy did not cover the costs when a lawnmower threw a rock at a neighbor's Ferrari and put a $20,000 chip in the paint or took somebody's eye out. (hypothetical examples of course)

You say there is zero negligence in the OP's case so an HO policy will not pay. I highly doubt it and would like to be shown otherwise. Got any actual examples to back your position?

But this is not a case of the OP's parents operating a snow blower on their property and hitting someone else's car. The person operating the snow blower hit his OWN car.

[jk]

And to your claim that as a contractor, if you loan a tool to another party you are automatically liable for any injuries incurred is bologna. If the tool loaned is defective and you were aware of it, you may very well be determined to be liable. If there is no defect and the accident is user error, you are not generally going to found liable. Lending a known defective tool would be seen as negligence. Now, there are hundreds of variables that can alter the situation but generally, it require negligence to be determined liable for injuries incurred while using your tools

one example of a perfect tool being used where the borrower is injured and the owner be determined liable would be where the tool loaned requires training or at least a familiarization with the tool to be able to operate it safely. Failing to ensure the borrower is fully trained and competent to use the tool could be seen as negligence on the lenders part and as such, could be found liable for injuries sustained by a borrower.

[Brian57]

Sorry, I think you guys learn what you post from one another and not from life or a courtroom.

Negligence has little to do with a HO policy's liability or contractual agreement to cover damages. If you doubt this then please tell why a HO is liable when an unlicensed contractor injures himself on your property? Or, why a pipe burst is covered? Or, when a well secured shingle from your house flies across the street and hits a pedestrian on the head?