- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
If u have a st pauls boat or marine policy cancel it now its worthless
Posted on 3/11/16 at 6:17 pm
Posted on 3/11/16 at 6:17 pm
USA March 7 2016
The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a conservator of a sailboat owner’s estate related to a claim for a lost sailboat under an all-risk boat insurance policy. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Britt, 2016 WL 360654 (Ala. Jan. 29, 2016).
The conservator filed a claim for a lost sailboat under an all-risk policy after the sailboat and its owner disappeared. The insurer denied coverage on the grounds there was no evidence of an “accidental direct physical loss or damage” that would trigger coverage and because the disappearance fell under the policy’s mysterious disappearance exclusion. The insurer argued the claim fell within the mysterious disappearance exclusion because there was no evidence as to what happened to the sailboat. The conservator sued the insurer.
The insurer filed a motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract and bad faith claims, and the conservator filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The trial court granted the conservator’s motion for partial summary judgment, denied the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and found the bad faith claim moot.
On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, that the conservator carried his burden of showing the loss was, absent an exclusion, covered and considered whether the mysterious disappearance exclusion applied. The conservator argued the exclusion is ambiguous and should therefore be strictly construed against the insurer. The Alabama Supreme Court found an ordinary person would interpret the phrase “mysterious disappearance” to mean the circumstances surrounding the disappearance are unknown, puzzling or baffling as to make the disappearance inexplicable and held the mysterious disappearance exclusion unambiguous.
The Court concluded there was no evidence to support a theory as to what happened to the sailboat and that the insurer carried its burden of showing the claim fell within the exclusion. It also considered whether the mysterious disappearance exclusion conflicted with a 30-day provision, which required the insurer to provide coverage when the boat had been lost for more than 30 days. The Court concluded the 30-day provision, when read in conjunction with the mysterious disappearance exclusion, did not render coverage illusory. The Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
So they will call any theft or loss mysterious and refuse to pay any loss claims. And frick You Phelps Dunbar.
LINK
The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a conservator of a sailboat owner’s estate related to a claim for a lost sailboat under an all-risk boat insurance policy. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Britt, 2016 WL 360654 (Ala. Jan. 29, 2016).
The conservator filed a claim for a lost sailboat under an all-risk policy after the sailboat and its owner disappeared. The insurer denied coverage on the grounds there was no evidence of an “accidental direct physical loss or damage” that would trigger coverage and because the disappearance fell under the policy’s mysterious disappearance exclusion. The insurer argued the claim fell within the mysterious disappearance exclusion because there was no evidence as to what happened to the sailboat. The conservator sued the insurer.
The insurer filed a motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract and bad faith claims, and the conservator filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The trial court granted the conservator’s motion for partial summary judgment, denied the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and found the bad faith claim moot.
On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, that the conservator carried his burden of showing the loss was, absent an exclusion, covered and considered whether the mysterious disappearance exclusion applied. The conservator argued the exclusion is ambiguous and should therefore be strictly construed against the insurer. The Alabama Supreme Court found an ordinary person would interpret the phrase “mysterious disappearance” to mean the circumstances surrounding the disappearance are unknown, puzzling or baffling as to make the disappearance inexplicable and held the mysterious disappearance exclusion unambiguous.
The Court concluded there was no evidence to support a theory as to what happened to the sailboat and that the insurer carried its burden of showing the claim fell within the exclusion. It also considered whether the mysterious disappearance exclusion conflicted with a 30-day provision, which required the insurer to provide coverage when the boat had been lost for more than 30 days. The Court concluded the 30-day provision, when read in conjunction with the mysterious disappearance exclusion, did not render coverage illusory. The Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
So they will call any theft or loss mysterious and refuse to pay any loss claims. And frick You Phelps Dunbar.
LINK
Posted on 3/11/16 at 6:48 pm to TutHillTiger
Shitty state, shitty court, shitty decision. Who contributes more to these (and any court's) judges....insurance industry or the average Joe boat owner?
Posted on 3/11/16 at 7:16 pm to TutHillTiger
so does this be a precident?...
Posted on 3/11/16 at 9:52 pm to TutHillTiger
Alabama Supreme Court is total shite
Posted on 3/11/16 at 10:34 pm to TutHillTiger
I'm not sure what they were supposed to do. While the circumstances may be strange that the owner and sailboat disappeared there has to be evidence to support the claim. How does the court know if the owner didn't take the boat and leave town never to return?
Posted on 3/11/16 at 10:44 pm to tilco
I think all of y'all are over reacting about this. The trial granted summary judgment, which means the judge simply decided for himself that there was no way that the respondent could rebut the petitioner's case. The appellate court reviews summary judgments by looking at them with the facts most favorable to the non-moving party (the party that appealed). What the supreme court of Alabama said was not that the original petitioner did not have a case or was wrong, simply that it is a question of fact that should have went to a jury rather than a judge deciding for herself. Questions of fact are always left to a jury in our judicial system (Bench trial exception). In this case it will go back to trial and both sides will present their cases and the jury will decide. By no means did the insurance company win the case outright.
Also, this type of exception to coverage is not much different then life insurance companies requirement that death be proven. If you go travel abroad and get kidnapped and killed, your life insurance is not going to pay out unless someone can prove your death. If your body is never found and no one figures out what happened to your your shite out of luck (or your beneficiaries should I say).
Also, this type of exception to coverage is not much different then life insurance companies requirement that death be proven. If you go travel abroad and get kidnapped and killed, your life insurance is not going to pay out unless someone can prove your death. If your body is never found and no one figures out what happened to your your shite out of luck (or your beneficiaries should I say).
This post was edited on 3/11/16 at 10:50 pm
Posted on 3/12/16 at 8:11 am to TigernMS12
I want to see the facts. Did the guy get caught in a storm on a previously scheduled voyage and disappear? Or did he sail off without notice shortly after being indicted for embezzlement? The facts could have considerable bearing on this decision IMO.
Posted on 3/13/16 at 11:55 pm to jbgleason
Sorry That is not what the Court said. I had to read twice the reversed and rendered. Court concluded there was no evidence to support a theory as to what happened to the sailboat and that the insurer carried its burden of showing the claim fell within the exclusion. It also considered whether the mysterious disappearance exclusion conflicted with a 30-day provision, which required the insurer to provide coverage when the boat had been lost for more than 30 days. The Court concluded the 30-day provision, when read in conjunction with the mysterious disappearance exclusion, did not render coverage illusory. [b]The Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the insurer. [/b]
Posted on 3/14/16 at 7:10 am to OTIS2
quote:
Who contributes more to these (and any court's) judges....insurance industry or the average Joe boat owner?
This post was edited on 3/14/16 at 7:25 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News