by MEBAD566 » Sun Nov 15, 2009 05:11 pm
My grandson(2) threw the remote and cracked the screen on my Sony Bravia flat screen.I have been told it is not worth fixing because of cost.Can I make a claim to my homeowners.
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 11:59 pm Post Subject:
Of course you can, but it will likely be denied. It should however be covered under your grandson's parents homeowners (liability). Depending on the reason he threw it.
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 02:51 am Post Subject:
You will likely have some trouble if the damage was not accidental in nature, i.e. he threw the remote at the TV intentionally which is what it sounds like.
Really it should be your grandson paying for the repair/replacement as he damaged the TV, if he has insurance to cover this liability, good for him - if not he should be paying for it personally.
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 03:40 am Post Subject:
Really it should be your grandson paying for the repair/replacement as he damaged the TV, if he has insurance to cover this liability, good for him - if not he should be paying for it personally.
He's two.
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 03:57 am Post Subject:
lol! not much chance of getting the cash out of him then! Sorry - missed that part of the original post.
actually it does raise an interesting question thought - can a childs actions be considered malicious/intentional damage? I would think not, so the loss would have to be considered accidental in nature -no?
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 04:48 am Post Subject:
Depending on the reason he threw it.
Any specific reason why it could be acceptable or deniable to an adjuster? I guess they'd count upon things like it was a mishap that could have been prevented had they been more cautious.
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 05:21 am Post Subject:
Every state has an age at which minors can be held responsible for their actions. Commonly called the "age of knowledge," this age can range anywhere from 7 to 12 depending on the state.
There's no way that a 2 year old can be held legally liable for his actions. The liability part of the homeowner contract will pay for the damage, even though there can be no "legal liability" assigned to the child, who is considered an insured under the homeowner's policy.
Parents of minor children can easily be held liable for the acts of their children. In this case, I see no problem with the HO coverage paying for the damage. As well, just about every HO contract has coverage for "damage to property of others without regard to legal liability." This normally provides around $1000 of coverage that can be paid without being liable.
On the other hand, even though the policy would probably pay for the damage, I would suggest that you ask mom and dad to take care of the damage personally. Submitting a claim wouldn't necessarily hurt mom and dad, but if there's a way of avoiding a claim, I think that would be the way to go.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:09 am Post Subject:
To clarify...Ins. teacher is stating the child's parents HO policy should cover the damage, NOT grandpa's policy (policy that covers the t.v.)...
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 07:37 pm Post Subject:
couldn't it be claimed under the Grandparents policy as well, as accidental damage? The insurer would then persue recovery against the parents of the grandchild?
End result would be the same (parents policy paying for it in the end) but if the parents weren't insured for example and couldn't pay for the repairs/replacement themselves, couldn't the grandparents claim under their own policy?
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:28 am Post Subject:
couldn't it be claimed under the Grandparents policy as well, as accidental damage? The insurer would then persue recovery against the parents of the grandchild?
Under what peril? Nope..I can't imagine any that would cover it..HO policys are named peril policys...and unless some adjuster could figure out a way to qualify this as vandalism .... I can't think of a peril that would qualify.
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 03:12 am Post Subject:
Another difference in the international markets I guess. standard cover in this part of the world is accidental damage rather than set perils - which explains why in this case it wouldn't be covered.
Add your comment