News & Updates
Renters Insurance Policy
2/20/2020
Renters insurance policy is not intended to cover your business even if your using your home to conduct business. One person learned the hard way that a renters insurance policy does not provide complete coverage for your business. When operating businesses that involve children requires specialized coverage's. Avoid costly mistakes and speak with an independent insurance broker.
Source:
Judgement Case
Leonard and Stephanie Riehl were sued by the Jamie Vandenberg for negligent parental supervision of their son , Justin. The Riehls lived in an apartment which was covered by a renter's policy from Continental Insurance Company. In December 1997, Stephanie was caring for the Vandenberg's infant son. Stephanie ran an unlicensed day care operation from her apartment. She cared for the Vandenberg child along with her own three children. One the day in question, Stephanie placed the Vandenberg infant in an upstairs bedroom, secured in a baby seat. Later, Stephanie's five-year old son, Justin, entered the room to watch television. The boy placed several pillows on top of the Vandenberg infant so he wouldn't be wakened by the noise from the TV. Later still, when Stephanie checked in on the baby, she found he had suffocated. Vandenberg sued the Riehls for failing to properly supervise their son.
The Riehls requested that Continental, their insurer, defend them against the suit. The insurer denied the claim and requested a summary judgment that the Riehls' claim did not qualify for coverage and that the contract could not be reformed to insure the daycare operation. The lower court granted Continental's request and Vandenberg appealed. The insurer reasserted its position. It claimed that their policy excluded business pursuits, defined daycare as a business pursuit and that the policy's exception for losses caused by non-business activity which occurs in the course of business did not apply to this loss. The insurer argued that Stephanie's supervision of her children was directly related to her daycare business. Vandenberg argued that the supervision of one's children is a continuous parental obligation and, should a loss arise from the duty, it should be covered.
The high court reviewed the policy language and it also studied several cases that contained some elements similar to the case at hand. The court considered the meaning of Continental's exclusion exception for non-business activities. In its opinion, the exception lost all meaning if it could not, in a given instance, be applied to a non-business activity that caused a loss in the course of a business pursuit. The court found the policy language, therefore its intent, ambiguous on that point. The lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer was reversed and the case was remanded for rehearing.
Jamie Vandenberg, Plaintiff-Appellant v. The Continental Insurance Company, Defendant-Respondent. WisSCt. No. 99-3193. Filed July 3, 2001. 2001 Wisc. LEXIS 433. Reversed and remanded. CCH Fire and Casualty Cases Paragraph 6804
201 Spear Street, San Francisco, California 94105, United States