There is an interesting catch in the story that probably played to the trial judge:

At the time of the fire, the house was owned by Fontana, but legally occupied by the Accolas under a thirty-day temporary occupancy permit.  Interestingly, James Accola happens to be both owner and president of Fontana.  The fire was allegedly caused by some dirty (and apparently flammable) rags left behind by a Fontana employee.

After the fire, the Accolas filed a negligence claim against Fontana and Westfield, Fontana’s liability insurer.  They acknowledged that damage to the house itself was not covered because the liability policy excludes coverage for property owned by the insured (here, Fontana).  However, they claim that the personal property they moved into the house was covered because it was not owned by Fontana and was not in Fontana’s care, custody, or control.

Westfield filed for summary judgment, claiming that the Accolas’ personal property was excluded from their policy by the “care, custody, or control” exclusion.  It claims that this exclusion is in place to avoid precisely this scenario, where an insured allows valuable property to be stored on its property while it is still doing work on it.  Westfield also claims that James Accola’s status as owner of Fontana strengthens its argument that his personal property should be excluded because it was under supervision “24 hours a day” by a Fontana employee–Accola himself.  The trial court granted summary judgment to Westfield and dismissed it from the lawsuit.

Based on the case law principle that the personal property is not covered only if it is necessary to the work on the property, the court of appeals overturned the trial court.  The court, while sympathetic to the argument, reasoned that the facts of the case compelled its conclusion.

We can understand why Westfield feels strongly, and why the trial court agreed, that the Accolas should not be able to sue Fontana to recover for damage done to their personal property based on the negligence of construction laborers who worked for and under James Accola himself.  Indeed, the issue of James Accola’s degree of supervision of the property may well be relevant to the merits of the potential negligence claim.  But the odd facts of this case do not change the legal standard that must be applied under Meiser and Silverton.

In order to win under the “care, custody, or control” exclusion of its policy at the summary judgment level, Westfield had to show that the Accolas’ personal property was necessary to the work being done by Fontana and this is something it has not done.

Sometimes even insurance companies get caught by the technicalities.

House fire photo courtesy 111 Emergency’s flickr gallery via this creative commons license.

Two events are crucial to making sure that you’ve got the coverage you want.  The first is bringing the issue up with your insurance agent, and also with your lawyer.  You can’t make a good decision if you don’t know what coverage is available, what it costs, and what potential problems you might face.  Talking with both your agent and your lawyer should cover all these bases.  By the way, if your agent isn’t bringing this issue up to you (or hasn’t brought it up to the owner/manager of the company for which you work) it might be time to find a new agent.

Second, once the decision has been made, you have to confirm that what you’ve got is what you’ve asked for.  When you get the policy, review the language.  Does it say what you think it should say?  Also, I’d take the policy back to your lawyer and find out if the language in the policy is sufficient to effectuate the decision you made earlier. 

If you’re an employer, I can tell you now that this issue is important to your employees.  If you’re an employee, let your employer know that the issue is important to you, and find out what you can about how (and if) you’re protected.

Used under a Creative Commons License from Peyman's Flickr gallery

In the Wisconsin Law Journal, Dave Ziemer writes an opinion piece about the proposed legislation that would prohibit insurance companies from using ZIP codes to set automobile insurance rates.  You can find more information at this site and in an article from the Wisconsin State Journal, which provides contact information.  While the discussion relates to personal auto insurance, this bill could impact on business insurance rates, as well.

A roof system installed by Specialty Associates failed within the five-year warranty established in its construction contract with the MBSD.  Among other things, Atlantic Mutual argued that the surety bond’s one-year limitation trumped the warranty, precluding liability.  The court disagreed:

“The rule in Wisconsin is that a surety’s obligation is derived from its principal and the liability of the surety is measured by the liability of the principal.” Waukesha Concrete Prods. Co. v. Capitol Indem. Corp., 127 Wis. 2d 332, 339, 379 N.W.2d 333 (Ct. App. 1985); see also Riley Constr. Co. v. Schillmoeller & Krofl Co., 70 Wis. 2d 900, 905, 236 N.W.2d 195 (1975) (“Because the surety’s obligation is derived from that of the principal debtor, the liability of the surety is ordinarily measured by the liability of the principal. If the principal is not liable to the claimant, then the surety is not liable either.”). “The bond issued by the surety and the contract which it secures should be construed together.” Waukesha Concrete, 127 Wis. 2d at 339.

The court also pointed to the plain terms of the bond language, which voided the bond only after Specialty Associates “faithfully performed all of the terms of the contract and has indemnified MBSD for all costs suffered due to any failure on the part of [Specialty Associates] to fully perform the contract.”  Because the five-year warranty was part of the contract, it was covered by the bond.

For those of you who work with surety bonds or construction, this case is a must read.