This Insurer Is Not Man’s Best Friend
In a story recently reported on WABC TV New York’s website, a woman on Long Island had a $300,000 fire damage claim denied because she owned a pit bull, Bella, that was not listed on the policy’s application for coverage. [This is why dogs should not play with matches.] The policy was subject to being voided because pit bulls are on the insurer’s list of prohibited breeds. There is seemingly more to the story in that the woman stated that a broker completed the application with her, via phone, and she was never asked if she had a dog. If she had been asked, she says, she would have said so. So the application was submitted with a “N” in response to the question about pets. You can find the story online. Search for Bella Fire Claim WABC.

Oh Lordy Lordy: I Can’t Believe This
In a story recently reported on lots of websites – so it must be true; but I’m not convinced – an elderly British minister was sent a letter from her insurance company warning that, by putting Jesus-themed bumper stickers on her car, she was jeopardizing coverage. The minister had submitted photos of her car as part of a claim. The photos revealed bumper stickers that read “Christ Must Be Savior” and “Christ For Me.” The insurer responded that it had not been told of these “modifications” to the car at the time of the application. If it had, the application would have been rejected. The insurer denied that its decision had anything to do with the religious message of the stickers. It was simply a question of such “modifications” not fitting the insurer’s “acceptance criteria” for auto insurance. This seems ridiculous and sounds like one of those situations where there’s more to the story. You can find the story online. Search for Wena Parry Bumper Stickers.

Colorado Supreme Court: No Prejudice Required For “Claims Made” Policy Breach
In what can hardly be viewed as a surprising decision, the Colorado Supreme Court held in Craft v. Philadelphia Indemnity, No. 14SA43 (Colo. Feb. 17, 2015) that, despite late notice in the context of “occurrence” policies being subjected to a prejudice requirement, that is not the case when it comes to “claims made” policies. The Craft court stated: “We hold that the notice-prejudice rule does not apply to a date-certain notice requirement in a claims-made insurance policy. In a claims-made policy, the date-certain notice requirement defines the scope of coverage. Thus, to excuse late notice in violation of such a requirement would rewrite a fundamental term of the insurance contract.”