Sad day at Premier RV in Junction City, or.

[awol50]

Originally Posted by Azpugman

Actually his liability coverage has nothing to do with it unless he was driving at the time. Liability, at least in Oregon, is for driver caused accidents not a fire of mysterious origin. Each coach hopefully has comprehensive and likely there will be lawsuits against the facility owner and the manufacturer of the coach that is identified as causing the fire.

It will be the insurance companies of the building and RV owners who will go after the guilty party. The actual building and RV owners won't have a say in that.
How that all plays out will depend on how definitive they can pin the cause of the fire to whom.
Either way with or without vehicle liability coverage, most likely the guy is sol.

[saddlesore]

Stopped by this afternoon....just totally looks fugly

[Azpugman]

Originally Posted by awol50

It will be the insurance companies of the building and RV owners who will go after the guilty party. The actual building and RV owners won't have a say in that.
How that all plays out will depend on how definitive they can pin the cause of the fire to whom.
Either way with or without vehicle liability coverage, most likely the guy is sol.

You clearly don't understand liability insurance and what it covers and doesn't cover.

There exists reams of case law where a vehicle in a parking lot is unattended, catches fire and damages adjacent vehicles. In those cases, almost universally, liability insurance does not come into play because liability covers the DRIVER not the vehicle. You can arm chair quarterback this all you want, but at the end of the day, the coach owner's comprehensive will cover them immediately, then those insurers will subrogate their loss against the building owner and their insurer. If they can pinpoint the origin of the fire and the cause, they may be able to subrogate against the suspect coach's manufacturer and their down stream suppliers.

Unless the cause can be directly tied to the driver (eg driving the coach and hits an electrical box or the driver did negligent work on the coach), in Oregon, liability insurance has no dog in this fight.

[saddlesore]

Originally Posted by Azpugman

You clearly don't understand liability insurance and what it covers and doesn't cover.
Unless the cause can be directly tied to the driver (eg driving the coach and hits an electrical box or the driver did negligent work on the coach), in Oregon, liability insurance has no dog in this fight.

You sir are correct!

[awol50]

Well I suggest we just wait and see. As I said whoever is responsible will be sol. More than likely the vehicle owner don't have the $6-8m liability coverage anyway, so a moot point. Except for those of us who like to be argumentative.

[awol50]

Originally Posted by saddlesore

You sir are correct!

Assuming as the article said, that the fire was started by one RV, that owner could have 3 kinds of liability insurance that might come into play. A home owner policy on either the RV or a separate house that might cover the RV for that kind of claim. Or an umbrella policy.
But even if those are applicable, probably not near enough coverage.

[triplewide]

Most significant thing to occur in Junction City since 1949.

Born there in '49, it hasn't changed much since then.

Hope no one was hurt.

[texasrs]

Comprehensive coverage is for the insured vehicle ONLY. It does NOT cover damage to other vehicles. Same with Collision . . .

[CarlAda]

Originally Posted by triplewide

Most significant thing to occur in Junction City since 1949.

Born there in '49, it hasn't changed much since then.

Hope no one was hurt.

No one was "physically" hurt.

[Azpugman]

Originally Posted by awol50

Assuming as the article said, that the fire was started by one RV, that owner could have 3 kinds of liability insurance that might come into play. A home owner policy on either the RV or a separate house that might cover the RV for that kind of claim. Or an umbrella policy.
But even if those are applicable, probably not near enough coverage.

No, homeowners "might" cover loss of contents but nothing else, the umbrella would only come into play if the underlying limits are breached and then only if direct liability could be pinpointed (ie a driving accident or negligent repair). Look, I have argued insurance cases for decades, I know of what I speak. There is no plausible liability claim here unless the causation of the fire can be directly linked to a DRIVER's action (eg moving the coach and hitting an electrical panel sparking a fire) or negligent repair done by the owner. Even then, the case law doesn't support much of claim in Oregon. It is always surprising to me how little some folks understand about insurance claims, coverage and subrogation. You should read your policy booklet more closely, you may think you have insurance when you don't. Not trying to be argumentative but facts are facts.

[awol50]

Originally Posted by Azpugman

No, homeowners "might" cover loss of contents but nothing else, the umbrella would only come into play if the underlying limits are breached and then only if direct liability could be pinpointed (ie a driving accident or negligent repair). Look, I have argued insurance cases for decades, I know of what I speak. There is no plausible liability claim here unless the causation of the fire can be directly linked to a DRIVER's action (eg moving the coach and hitting an electrical panel sparking a fire) or negligent repair done by the owner. Even then, the case law doesn't support much of claim in Oregon. It is always surprising to me how little some folks understand about insurance claims, coverage and subrogation. You should read your policy booklet more closely, you may think you have insurance when you don't. Not trying to be argumentative but facts are facts.

Homeowners liability and an umbrella liability coverage has no requirement that coverage is dependent on driving.
If my house burns down and it damages my neighbor's property I am covered by both with the umbrella as excess.
Beyond that who cares. The guy who is responsible for this $8m fire is sol most likely no matter what.

[Azpugman]

Originally Posted by awol50

Homeowners liability and an umbrella liability coverage has no requirement that coverage is dependent on driving.
If my house burns down and it damages my neighbor's property I am covered by both with the umbrella as excess.
Beyond that who cares. The guy who is responsible for this $8m fire is sol most likely no matter what.

What you have missed is that for an Umbrella to come into play you have to have a "covered" loss within the underlying liability. HO will only come into play for contents coverage. Liability for HO is limited to accidents directly related to the covered property (eg slip and fall).

As to your example of your house burning down and damaging your neighbor's house, you are absolutely wrong. Your neighbor's comprehensive covers their house and then the their HO insurance carrier can try to subrogate against your HO policy if you had a known hazard. If it was a simple accident, then your HO has no liability to your neighbor. Same is if your neighbor's tree falls on your house. Your insurance covers the damage with you paying your deductible. If your neighbor has reason to believe the tree was a hazard and didn't mitigate it, then you might have a claim against your neighbor but otherwise you have no claim.

Good luck my friend with your argument. I hope that you at least have enough sense to hire Counsel and don't try to defend yourself if you ever have a loss. You clearly have a feeble grasp on insurance law and coverage. I am available, licensed in AZ, OR, WA, CA and ID if you need competent insurance counsel.

[awol50]

Originally Posted by Azpugman

What you have missed is that for an Umbrella to come into play you have to have a "covered" loss within the underlying liability. HO will only come into play for contents coverage. Liability for HO is limited to accidents directly related to the covered property (eg slip and fall).

As to your example of your house burning down and damaging your neighbor's house, you are absolutely wrong. Your neighbor's comprehensive covers their house and then the their HO insurance carrier can try to subrogate against your HO policy if you had a known hazard. If it was a simple accident, then your HO has no liability to your neighbor. Same is if your neighbor's tree falls on your house. Your insurance covers the damage with you paying your deductible. If your neighbor has reason to believe the tree was a hazard and didn't mitigate it, then you might have a claim against your neighbor but otherwise you have no claim.

Good luck my friend with your argument. I hope that you at least have enough sense to hire Counsel and don't try to defend yourself if you ever have a loss. You clearly have a feeble grasp on insurance law and coverage. I am available, licensed in AZ, OR, WA, CA and ID if you need competent insurance counsel.

So you are saying that even if it is shown the fire started in his RV, from say an electric short or equipment malfunction and caused $8m in damages to others, he skates? Zero legal liability.

[Azpugman]

Originally Posted by awol50

So you are saying that even if it is shown the fire started in his RV, from say an electric short or equipment malfunction and caused $8m in damages to others, he skates? Zero legal liability.

Unless it can be shown, to the satisfaction of a judge or jury, that the exact origin of the fire was related to a previous known defect, the owner has zero liability. In other words, if the owner was aware that there was a defective condition in the coach that a reasonably prudent person would believe to be a fire hazard, there may be some liability to either the coach owner or the manufacturer. Absent a known condition, that a reasonably prudent person would be concerned thereof, there is little to no chance of successful subrogation to the owner of the coach where the fire originated. Without this connection to a known condition, each coach owner's insurance covers to whatever their insurance contract requires.

This is all assuming that a coach was the origin of the fire.