<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crose10090:
I recently fell down my own basement stairs and sustained several injuries. I was in rehab for 3 weeks. I still do not have full use of my right arm. I have been told I should sue my homeowner's insurance. Is it possible to sue your own insurance/ How do you go about it?
I must respectfully disagree with my esteemed, and soon-to-be collegue, Lawrat, on the main issue of first party (insured homeowner) coverage. I do, however, agree with Lawrat's conclusion that it is extremely important to read your policy to determine if there is a "resident relative" exclusion. Normally, liability coverage is available only for non-resident, "third party", claims.
However, if our writer is an insured under the homeowner's policy, there is more than likely an "exclusion" for resident relative coverage, based upon the following:
"Resident Relative" Exclusion: Another common exclusion in "personal liability insurance" is for "bodily injury" to any other person "insured" under the same policy or a resident of the same household.
Sample provisions: This Homeowners coverage excludes liability for bodily injury to "you" or anyone "related by blood or marriage to a covered person and who is resident of the household of that person."
Other policies exclude bodily injury to an "insured" and define "insured" to include "you and residents of your household who are your relatives or other persons under the age of 21 in the care of any person named above." [See Kibbee v. Blue Ridge Ins. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 53, 58, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 294, 297]
The primary purpose of the "resident relative" exclusion is to preclude coverage for claims between members of the same family: "The concept of a household exclusion is a common one which has long enjoyed judicial support. Its purpose is to prevent suspect inter-family legal actions which may not be truly adversary and over which the insurer has little or no control . . . (and) for the insurer's protection from collusive assertions of liability." [Reserve Ins. Co. v. Pisciotta (1982) 30 Cal.3d 800, 807, 180 Cal.Rptr. 628, 631, fn. 1 (internal quotes omitted)]
A homeowners policy provides no coverage for injuries inflicted by an insured husband against his wife and children living in the same household. Their claims are barred by the "resident relative" exclusion. [State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Lewis (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 960, 964, 236 Cal.Rptr. 807, 809--includes wrongful death claims; see also State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Alstadt (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 33, 38, 169 Cal.Rptr. 593, 595--tort claims between brothers residing in same household]
The homeowners policy also excludes bodily injury or property damage arising from a "business pursuit." Its purpose is to exclude coverage for the type of risk normally covered by a policy of commercial general liability insurance. Commercial risks must be covered under a commercial policy and are excluded from coverage under a homeowners policy by the "business pursuits" exclusion.
Good luck, and please let us know if there's an exclusion in your policy.
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."
[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited May 15, 2000).]