This is Tim Dodge's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Tim Dodge's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Tim Dodge
Recent Activity
I received this email from Jerry Trupin, CPCU, CLU, ChFC in Sleepy Hollow, New York: --- ISO CP 00 17 includes the following in the definition of covered building property: 6) Any of the following types of property contained within a unit, regardless of ownership, if your Condominium Association Agreement requires you to insure it: (a) Fixtures, improvements and alterations that are a part of the building or structure; and (b) Appliances, such as those used for refrigerating, ventilating, cooking, dishwashing, laundering, security or housekeeping. But Building does not include personal property owned by, used by or in the care, custody or control of a unit-owner except for personal property listed in Paragraph A.1.a.(6) above. The key term is “if your condominium Association Agreement requires you to insure it:” If so, I think the property described in A.1.a.(6) would be covered whether owned by the developer or anyone else. Sometimes called “original specifications” coverage, it's my preferred choice for condo insurance. Even if the agreement doesn't call for original specifications coverage, some insurers will endorse the policy to provide equivalent coverage. ------- Very true. Some of the coverage in both personal and commercial condominium forms hinges on what the condo association by-laws say. Thanks to Jerry for raising this point!
John - that question is probably best directed to a qualified financial adviser. I know that an LLC provides liability protections and possibly some tax advantages, but I'm by no means an expert.
Lyla, Thank you for commenting!
Thanks, Bob! :) Lucy, in a nutshell, Employers Liability here covers an employer's legal liability for injuries to employees when those injuries are not compensable under state Workers' Compensation laws.
Mark, Congratulations on winning that battle. Don, I agree, the term "reasonable care" can be nebulous. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the standard is what an ordinary, reasonable, prudent person would do in that situation. Certainly Mark's insured appears to have met that standard. Some carriers have had success denying claims in New York based on the "where you reside" clause, but that doesn't seem to be at issue in these situations.
Carson, Good points. Thanks for posting! Tim
Tom, I agree. There's no substitute for an insurance check at renewal, and that includes a check for changes to the vehicle schedule. Tim
Tim Dodge is now following The Typepad Team
Mar 15, 2010