The chain leading to the wrong conclusion

The chain broke, the horse got loose, and Robert was injured. A clear case of covered negligence – or was it? It turns out that Margaret had modified the trailer and later sold it to Robert. Robert claimed that the modifications caused the chain to break and sued Margaret for his injuries.

Margaret's carrier denied coverage, stating that Margaret's actions were part of maintaining her owned vehicle. Margaret and Robert argued that the exclusion couldn't apply because Margaret did not own the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Can anyone say … ambiguity?

Who wants to kow how the courts ruled on this one? 
send me an email at Jeff@RARisk.com and I will send you the answer!!!!
 
Posted 8:29 AM  View Comments

Share |


No Comments


Post a Comment
Name
Required
E-Mail
Required (Not Displayed)
Comment
Required


All comments are moderated and stripped of HTML.
Submission Validation
Required
CAPTCHA
Change the CAPTCHA codeSpeak the CAPTCHA code
 
Enter the Validation Code from above.
NOTICE: This blog and website are made available by the publisher for educational and informational purposes only. It is not be used as a substitute for competent insurance, legal, or tax advice from a licensed professional in your state. By using this blog site you understand that there is no broker client relationship between you and the blog and website publisher.
Blog Archive


View Mobile Version
Carrier
Carrier
Carrier
Carrier
Carrier
Carrier
Carrier
© Copyright. All rights reserved. Powered by Insurance Website Builder