Claims Against Admiral Insurance
A recent case in which Admiral Insurance was sued by Walters and Stromberg reveals the differences between a conventional tort claim and a no fee claims against Admiral. As a result of the negligence of the insurer, Walters and Stromberg suffered damages arising from the loss of their rental property. In their claims against the insurance company, they allege that Admiral is liable for $90,000 of the total loss, which is in excess of the $70,000 limit on liability under the policy.
Unlike a traditional tort Admiral Claim Phone Number, where one party’s fault leads to the other party being liable for the entire loss, a no fee claims against Admiral involves a contractual relationship between the parties. The law bound the insurer to contract with the insured, but it is still up to the insurer to prove that it did not intend to make such a contract.
On the one hand, Admiral argued that it was not guilty of contributory negligence because it had not renewed the policy of Mr. Housman before the loss. Similarly, it claimed that the liability of Walters and Stromberg was not a tort but a contractual liability. However, a jury found the defendants liable for their actions and awarded an additional $20,000 of the loss to them.
No Fee Claims Against Admiral Insurance
Although Walters and Stromberg were negligent in their dealings with Housman, the jury also found them liable for their negligence. According to their testimony, they failed to give the required notice to Housman.
In addition, the insurance policy of Walters and Stromberg was not replaced before the loss. This was contrary to the statutory requirement. And, it would have left both the insurer and the insured in a limbo position.
Finally, the pleading of the lawsuit was flawed. The pleading lacked a requisite statement of the cause of the accident and the amount of the premium. While the trial court instructed the jury to award an amount up to $90,000 for fire damage, it did not require that the amount be stated. Moreover, the jury’s instruction did not indicate that the increased cost was due to the construction of the frame of the house.
At the trial, the jury found that Walters and Stromberg had breached the terms of their contract with Housman. Furthermore, the jury found that Stromberg was guilty of a negligent breach of the contract. Nevertheless, it found that the defendants’ negligence caused the fire damage and the additional amount of the loss.
Despite the jury’s findings, Admiral’s argument of proximate cause was invalid. It argued that the dereliction of Richey was a proximate cause of the loss, which led to the claim by Walters and Stromberg.
However, the jury did not find that Walters and Stromberg were liable for causing the fire. Rather, they determined that the fire was the result of a wrongful act by Housman. Therefore, they did not award any damages to Housman.
So, the main point to take away from this case is that there is no basis for Admiral to assert any right of indemnity against Walters and Stromberg. Hence, the insurer is liable only to the extent of the loss to the insured, which is limited to $70,000.