 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Children's Friend and Service12/1/2005
a non-profit physicians professional association that provided administrative support services to health care provider organizations. Id. at 823. A woman sued the insured for the wrongful death of her husband alleging misrepresentations by the insured with regard to the scope of its coverage for liver transplants. Id. The trial court ruled, as a matter of law, that the insurer had no duty under the policy either to indemnify or defend the insured. Id. at 824.
The policy in Chesapeake was a business owners policy that included provisions excluding certain types of damages and claims from its broad comprehensive general liability coverage. Id. at 823. Importantly, the pertinent language of the general coverage provision was identical to that of the policy in question here. The insurer argued that by the language of the general coverage provision, the policy was a limited premises liability policy; the insured argued, however, that business operations conducted from the premises were covered under the language of the endorsement. Id. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the insurer, concluding as follows:
n the language of the liability limitation endorsement . . . "operations necessary or incidental thereto" modifies not "premises" but "ownership, maintenance, or use of the premises." Thus, the coverage afforded by the policy extends to claims arising from the "ownership, maintenance or use" of the property, and "operations necessary or incidental" to the "ownership, maintenance or use" of the property. Id. at 826.
The Maryland court based its conclusion on the linguistic structure of the policy and "other portions of the insurance policy." Id. at 827. First, the court noted that the description of the property and operations covered by the policy was limited to the single word, "Office," and not a "more precise definition of the types of operations covered." Id. Second, the court stressed the fact that premiums were calculated based on the square footage of the properties and premises covered, not on the basis of certain types of risks. Id. Finally, the court observed that, in accordance with industry custom, policies are not individually tailored to each particular customer. Id. Rather, policies start with the most expansive coverage and are whittled down using exclusionary language that is tailored to the particular customer. Id. The court opined that this final factor was "perhaps most important." Id. Applying these three factors to the facts of the instant case, this Court concludes that Policy No. S 996-24-75 provides premises liability insurance coverage, not general liability insurance coverage.
With respect to the first factor, the policy in question actually provides a somewhat more detailed description of the property and operations covered by the policy than did the policy in Chesapeake. The description includes the term "social services" in addition to two more generic, premises-oriented terms-"Dwelling" and "Office." (Travelers' ex. F.) This marginal improvement as to the first factor, however, is outweighed by the second and third factors. As in Chesapeake, the premiums are computed on the basis of square footage rather than risk. (Travelers' ex. F.) Most importantly, as in Chesapeake, the disputed limitation is included in the general coverage provision, which means that "there was never a time when the analyzed language was not part of the policy." Id. In addition, this Court notes that even the policy's title-"Owners', Landlords' and Tenants' Liability Insurance: Coverage for Designated Premises and Related Operations in Progress Including Structural Alterations, New Construction and Demolition"-suggests that the policy is limited to insurance of the p
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|