Hunting Leases

Believe it or not, fall and winter hunting seasons are fast approaching. And, invariably, when the seasons begin, hunters ask their insurance agents about liability coverage on owned and leased hunting land and landowners ask about liability insurance on property leased to hunters. Is this a homeowners or a CGL exposure?

A homeowners policy is likely to respond to non-residence premises grounds only if the land is vacant and not used for a business purpose. If land is truly vacant, liability coverage may be found under individuals’ homeowners policies as long as there are no business activities. But what constitutes “vacant?”

Hunting property often contains a duck blind, deer stand, fence or other type of structures. Courts generally agree that if any manmade structure is on the premises, it’s not vacant. If the situation doesn’t qualify for a homeowners policy or the underwriter waivers, the exposure might have to be insured commercially or on a specialty product.

For more information, click here.

Care, Custody or Control and Separation of Insureds

Last month’s Forms & Substance column included the article, “The ‘Work You Performed’ Exclusion.” The premise of that garage policy article was that damage to a customer’s auto during an ongoing operation, absent garagekeepers coverage, is often denied due to the care, custody or control liability exclusion (CCC).

However, this might not always be the case in a business auto policy if the separation of insureds provision controls. For example, take this scenario presented to the Big “I” Virtual University’s “Ask an Expert” service:

“A customer left his vehicle to have the tires rotated at our insured’s garage. An employee got into a service truck to leave and backed into the customer’s car. The insurer denied coverage under a business auto policy citing the care, custody and control exclusion and paid the claim under the garagekeepers coverage.”

Whether the CCC exclusion applies depends on which insured the claim is made against. The exclusion applies to: “‘Property damage’ to or ‘covered pollution cost or expense’ involving property owned or transported by the ‘insured’ or in the ‘insured’s’ care, custody or control.”

So, the question is whether the auto was in the CCC of the employee who negligently caused the damage or if it was in the CCC of others, including the named insured.


To read the full article, including how the separation of insureds clause plays into this claim, click here.

Defining “Use” of a Vehicle

A child who was a passenger on an ATV was injured and the insurer denied the claim under a premises liability policy, citing an exclusion for the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle. If someone is a passenger on a conveyance, are they “using” that vehicle?

To support the insurer’s position, the adjuster cited a court case in which a passenger was “using” an auto. However, in this case, the “use” constituted grabbing the steering wheel and directing the vehicle into a crash. There is a significant difference between actively controlling a vehicle and passively occupying it.

Further, following the insurer’s logic, if a passenger on a commercial airplane is loading carry-on luggage in the overhead bin, and inadvertently drops the piece of luggage on a fellow passenger’s head, is this considered “use of an aircraft,” which is excluded by his or her homeowners policy?

Absent facts to the contrary, simply being a passenger on a vehicle does not constitute “use” as intended by the exclusionary language of some policies.


To read the full article, including court case citations, click here.


Bill Wilson (bill.wilson@iiaba.net) is Big “I” director of the Virtual University, an online learning center for agents and brokers.