RV fire, propane and Tunnel - he got off lucky

If you buy an insurance policy that excludes the cost of defense then you deserve what you get. My insurance policies (both home and auto) require then to pay the cost of the defense. I'm not sure on cars, but my homeowners doesn't have a limit on defense costs.

msmith1199 wrote:

Dog Folks wrote:
I did not make my post to start a discussion about the interpretation of a contract. That is for lawyers. Or the proper use of a semi colon, although some here should research what it is used for.

I posted to point out that insurance companies make money by collecting premiums and reducing pay outs on claims. The difference between the two is called profit. They will try to reduce or deny every claim that is made. It is what they do.

It appears that some here think the insurance company is your friend. They are not.

Insurance companies are legally obligated to pay valid claims. They may cancel your policy after they pay it, but they have to pay. And if the payment is going to be more than your policy limits (like may happen here) they will attempt to negotiate a settlement for you with the claimant as they are still on the hook for legal representation (generally) even after the policy limits have been paid. Now this particular accident happened in Canada so I have no idea if their rules are different or not, but I would imagine they are similar.

Being in Canada could open a whole new can of worms. Not an insurance expert, nor do I claim to be,. but I have experienced some of these issues in life.

They still will look for any legal loophole to avoid the claim. Some policies exclude the cost of defense also.

Dog Folks wrote:
I did not make my post to start a discussion about the interpretation of a contract. That is for lawyers. Or the proper use of a semi colon, although some here should research what it is used for.

I posted to point out that insurance companies make money by collecting premiums and reducing pay outs on claims. The difference between the two is called profit. They will try to reduce or deny every claim that is made. It is what they do.

It appears that some here think the insurance company is your friend. They are not.

Insurance companies are legally obligated to pay valid claims. They may cancel your policy after they pay it, but they have to pay. And if the payment is going to be more than your policy limits (like may happen here) they will attempt to negotiate a settlement for you with the claimant as they are still on the hook for legal representation (generally) even after the policy limits have been paid. Now this particular accident happened in Canada so I have no idea if their rules are different or not, but I would imagine they are similar.

Executive wrote:

Dog Folks wrote:

Exclusions
These coverages do not apply to liability for:

Bodily injury or property damage caused by the: intentional
acts; criminal acts, other than traffic violations; or
omissions; of an insured person, or done at the direction of
an insured person, which are designed to produce loss or
damage.

If too much propane in a tunnel is "criminal" is up to prosecutors office as to what charges are filed.

Seems like transportation of excess propane would fall under the "traffic violation" provisions, not criminal act...Dennis

You are correct Dennis. It's a traffic violation just like DUI is a traffic violation and you are covered for that too. Intentional criminal acts would be things like ramming another vehicle in a road rage incident or insurance fraud type situations.

Dog Folks wrote:
The article said he and his insurance company have to pay.

Although he was committing an illegal act at the time (More propane than allowed in tunnel) that should give the insurance company a reason to decline the claim.

I avoid tunnels also. Did not like them in a car, and now hate them with a trailer in tow.

So if you do something illegal insurance can decline you? So what if he had ran a stop sign and got in an accident, declined insurance?

romore wrote:
What rv packs 216 liters of propane?:h His insurance company would be on the hook for the damage to the tunnel unless he knew or ought to have known about a problem likely to cause the fire.

I had to go to a conversion chart, but 216 liters is 57 gallons. I have a 35 foot DP and I think my tank is 30 gallons. This guy must have been carrying extra.

One of the videos viewed on Montreal TV showed a trailer for selling food (a "chip wagon") being removed from the tunnel. It was reported that this trailer was being towed by the RV and may account for some of the wild numbers published on the quantities of propane that were bandied about because it had two large tanks of propane attached to it. The trailer itself appeared undamaged. No explosion caused by propane was reported locally though.

There has been nothing reported that indicates the real initial cause of the fire, only speculation so far. It burned so badly simply because getting firefighting equipment and crews to the site was very difficult. Firefighters may also have been held back due to the reported presence of propane and threat of a possible explosion.

I don't ever recall seeing signs before that particular tunnel regarding shutting off propane but I seldom use it and never with an RV... but this RV may have had his fridge on, as many do, while traveling.

I did not make my post to start a discussion about the interpretation of a contract. That is for lawyers. Or the proper use of a semi colon, although some here should research what it is used for.

I posted to point out that insurance companies make money by collecting premiums and reducing pay outs on claims. The difference between the two is called profit. They will try to reduce or deny every claim that is made. It is what they do.

It appears that some here think the insurance company is your friend. They are not.

CarnationSailor wrote:

Dog Folks wrote:

CarnationSailor wrote:
I never have understood the statements on the forums where posters say an insurance company can deny a claim if you do something illegal. If I speed or run thru a stop light (which is illegal) resulting in an accident, is my insurance company going to deny the claim? I don't think so.

I agree with a previous post that says that is why we have insurance.

You folks might want to check your policy. This is directly from mine (A major company,) listed when coverage is denied:

Exclusions
These coverages do not apply to liability for:

Bodily injury or property damage caused by the: intentional
acts; criminal acts, other than traffic violations; or
omissions; of an insured person, or done at the direction of
an insured person, which are designed to produce loss or
damage.

If too much propane in a tunnel is "criminal" is up to prosecutors office as to what charges are filed.

The key condition here for exclusion of coverage is "which are designed to produce loss or damage." This means (I think) if it was my "design" (intent) to cause damage by carrying too much propane, then yes, the coverage would be excluded. However, if there was no intent to cause damage, then the insurance company couldn't exclude coverage.

Bingo! A deliberate criminal act "designed to cause loss". Probably mostly directed at fraud of the insurance company. i.e., buy a car with a motor you know is bad at a much cheaper price than the Blue Book says that model is worth. Then, it "accidentally" catches fire, and insurance is filed at the much higher value.

On the East Coast (at least from NYC to Florida) I'd say 99% of the propane restrictions in tunnels are for COMMERCIAL vehicles.
Mostly, a RV can simply drive thru. However, on one (that I know of...Chesapeake Bay Tunnel )all propane tanks must be turned off....and are CHECKED by the authorities to make sure they are. Then you can drive thru.

And....forget driving an RV in and out of NYC....I think the ONLY way in and out is the upper level of the George Washington Bridge.