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!!!!