Article View: rec.equestrian
Article #2860Re: Spooking and Liability
From: Matt Simpson
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:17
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:17
32 lines
2860 bytes
2860 bytes
Get out your insurance policy and read it. Most homeowner policies have a clause about pets .. it's usually intended for things like dogs biting people, but it should cover horses. I know my parents insurance company bought a new tire for one of their guests aftre a dog chewed a hole in it. I don't know anyone who's ever tried to collect on a liability claim from horse inflicted damage. When I got my farm policy, which is basically just a beefed up homeowners policy, I specifically asked the agent if it would cause damages caused by horses. He said yes, and asked what kind they were. When I said TB, he balked a little, and said the company didn't like insuring TBs because they were crazy. I pointed out that these were not money-making horses, so if they were really crazy I wouldn't keep them. He went along with that, and wrote into the policy that it covered my horses used for pleasure purposes, or something like that. There's another potential problem with car-horse accidents. There's a clause in my policy which says something to the effect that it doesn't cover claims resulting from motor-vehicle accidents. That's pretty standard in home-owners policies ... they don't want to be hooked for stuff that should be covered by your car insurance. But it might be stretched to weasel their way out of paying up if your horse damages a car. Look for a clause like that in your policy, and see how loose the wording is. Also consider whether your company is likely to follow the letter or the intent of the clause. My company continued to pay lawyers to defend me in a lawsuit even after the lawyers pointed out several clauses that could have gotten them off the hook. One was the motor-vehicle clause. I was sued because a jerk on a motorcycle ran into a truck that was about to pull out of my driveway. It wasn't my truck ... I didn'teven know the driver. But I was sued for having a "dangerous driveway." The lawyers said the company wasn't liable because the accident involved motor vehicles, which was specifically excluded in the policy. But the company, being a fairly honorable one, decided that wasn't really the intent of that clause. -- This signature file exists because our crappy newsreader won't work without it.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<sysmatt.728212653@aix3090b.uky.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ulowell!m2c!nic.umass.edu!noc.near.net!hri.com!ukma!sysmattReferences:
<1993Jan26.201552.26118@nmsu.edu> <1993Jan27.190852.27915@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <1993Jan27.193138.3316@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ulowell!m2c!nic.umass.edu!noc.near.net!hri.com!ukma!sysmatt From: sysmatt@aix3090b.uky.edu (Matt Simpson) Newsgroups: rec.equestrian Subject: Re: Spooking and Liability Keywords: liability Message-ID: <sysmatt.728212653@aix3090b.uky.edu> Date: 28 Jan 93 09:17:33 GMT References: <1993Jan26.201552.26118@nmsu.edu> <1993Jan27.190852.27915@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <1993Jan27.193138.3316@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> Sender: news@ms.uky.edu (USENET News System) Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences Lines: 32 Nntp-Posting-Host: aix3090b.uky.edu