Q&A of the Week |
Coverage for Rented or Leased Solar Panels
A Rhode Island subscriber recently asked the following question:
Can you shed some light on coverage for solar panels? These are becoming more and more popular. In particular is there any coverage under the homeowners policy if the solar panels are not owned by the insured? If they are leased or rented? The panels are on the roof.
ANSWER: If the solar panels weren't leased, they'd just be coverage A. Since they are leased/rented to the insured, you look to the liability coverage since solar panels aren't really personal property. The liability section excludes property damage to property rented to, occupied by, or used by or in the care of the insured, except for fire, smoke or explosion. There is a little bit of coverage under the additional coverage Damage to Property of Others, but this is limited to $1,000.
You could add the additional insured endorsement, HO 04 41, which makes the listed person or organization an insured with respect to coverages A and B, dwelling and other structures, and E and F, personal liability and med pay. Of concern is the extension of liability coverage however the endorsement states that E and F apply only with respect to injury or damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the residence premises. Other than that, there are no endorsements that fit your scenario or other ways to provide coverage. |
|
Litigation Watch |
Obligations of Self-Insured Car Rental Company
The creditor filed a petition for an order against a self-insured car rental company seeking to collect $600,000 on a default judgment he obtained against an uninsured driver of the rented vehicle. This case is Nelson v. Artley, 2015 IL 118058.
Haney rented a car from Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago. While the vehicle was being driven by Artley, the vehicle crossed the center line and collided with a car operated by Nelson. Nelson was severely injured and sued Artley to recover damages. Artley was uninsured and Nelson then sought and received a default judgment in the amount of $600,000.
After obtaining the default judgment, Nelson then sued Enterprise to determine whether the company held any property from which the judgment could be satisfied. The trial court ruled in favor of Nelson but limited the recovery amount to $25,000. The appeals court reversed that ruling and the car company appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
The Illinois Supreme Court noted that the sole basis for Enterprise's financial liability in this case is the obligation imposed on it pursuant to the state's financial responsibility laws by virtue of its ownership of the vehicle what collided with Nelson when it was being driven by Artley, who was uninsured. The court also noted that Enterprise conceded it must pay some portion of the default judgment under state law. The only question before the court then was how much of the judgment Enterprise must pay. The resolution of that question turned solely on the terms of the relevant financial responsibility statutes.
The law, said the court, mandates liability insurance coverage for autos and other motor vehicles designed to be used on a public highway. However, the law does not require that the full amount of any loss be covered; rather, the law mandates only certain minimum levels of coverage. The law also allowed car rental companies to fulfill the financial responsibility requirements by obtaining a certificate of self-insurance from the Director of the Illinois Department of Insurance. Enterprise did this and now, the question was: how much of the default judgment was Enterprise required to pay.
Enterprise said that under its self-insured status and Illinois law, its total financial responsibility was $100,000 per occurrence, the same minimum required of rental companies that elect to meet their statutory financial responsibility obligations through the purchase of insurance policies. Moreover, Enterprise said that it had already paid $50,000 to settle another claim arising from the same accident and had tendered an additional $50,000 to the court to allocate between Nelson and a third injured person. Because these sums exhausted the $100,000 per occurrence liability limits, Enterprise contended that it had already tendered all that it could be required to pay.
The trial court had ruled that the allocation was to be divided equally between Nelson and the other injured person and so, Nelson could only receive $25,000. The appeals court reversed this ruling. The Illinois Supreme Court then reversed the appellate ruling and said Enterprise was required to pay only the $25,000.
The court noted that the express, undisputed, and overriding purpose of self-insurance was simply to establish proof of financial responsibility. It was not proof of the ability to fully satisfy judgments but was rather proof of the ability to provide some base level of financial coverage where otherwise there would be none. That base level coverage is the standard by which the self-insurer's liability must be gauged. The court said that imposing unlimited liability on those who elect to self-insure would be patently incompatible with this standard.
The court ruled that the trial court was correct when it construed the relevant provisions of the financial responsibility statutes to mean that Enterprise's financial responsibility was limited to the same minimum coverage provisions applicable to rental car companies electing to meet financial responsibility obligations through the purchase of an insurance policy. Under the construction, the amount Enterprise was obligated to pay is limited to $25,000, an amount Enterprise had already tendered to the court Contrary to the view taken by the appellate court, Enterprise is not liable for the entire $600,000 default judgment.
Editor's Note: The Illinois Supreme Court rules that a self-insured car rental company met its financial responsibility requirements through self-insurance, and the financial responsibility was limited to the same minimum coverage provisions applicable to car rental companies electing to meet financial responsibility obligations through the purchase of an insurance policy. In this instance, the car rental company had paid out its total financial responsibility amount and was not required to provide any additional amounts in order to satisfy full coverage for the loss. |
|
Fraud of the Week |
Auto Accident Fraud—Indiana
AMOUNT: $600,000+
A crime ring has been broken up in Indiana after a two year investigation. Thirty of thirty-six people involved in the frauds were arrested. Each person faces at least two federal charges, wire fraud and mail fraud for documentation connected with the claims. Each charge carries a maximum of twenty years, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release.
An auto would be purchased and someone would be recruited to crash it in a remote area; often into a tree or other stationary object, causing significant damage. Then others located nearby would get in the vehicle and wait for emergency personnel. Vehicles were often loaded with three or four individuals in order to maximize the claims that could be filed.
|
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to FC&S |
FC&S Online is the unquestioned authority on insurance coverage interpretation and anlaysis for the P&C industry. FC&S offers unbiased analysis and interpretation and keeps you current on the latest ISO and AAIS revisions. Providing instant access to the very latest information, FC&S is the resource that agents, attorneys, brokers, risk managers, underwriters, and adjusters rely on to research commercial and personal lines coverage issues. |
• |
Quickly and accurately determine coverage under a policy at the time of loss |
• |
Research coverage issues and interpretations, including court cases |
• |
Access experts live to discuss specific situations |
• |
Find answers to questions based on real-world claims disputes |
• |
View and print ISO forms |
• |
Access updates on breaking litigation and bureau developments |
|
|
|
Join Us Live! |
FC&S editors regularly conduct web-based demos of the service. Feel free to contact Christine Barlow, cbarlow@alm.com, for more information. They only take 30 minutes, a small investment of time that will help you learn all that FC&S Online has to offer. |
|
Contact Us |
As always, your comments and questions are welcome.
Contact us at:
FC&S Department
Phone: 800-543-0874
Fax: 859-692-2246
Email: eAlerts@nuco.com |
|
|