The question of the month deals with workers compensation and the employment of minors. When a legally employed minor is injured in the course of employment, the workers compensation insurance mechanism functions in the same fashion as in any employee injury situation; that is, the minor is eligible for all benefits prescribed by the state's workers compensation law, to be paid by the employer's workers compensation insurance. However, when illegally employed minors are injured in the course of employment, employers can find themselves in difficult situations regarding insurance coverage, particularly when the employer has knowingly permitted the illegal employment.

Employers and the insurance professionals that handle the workers compensation exposures should be familiar with the employment laws of the state concerning minors, and the scope of coverage under the workers compensation and employers liability insurance for minors employed contrary to law. For information on this subject and for reviews of court cases from various states dealing with claims by minors who have been injured on the job, link onto the designated article in the Bulletins.

Among the court cases reviewed this month is a case from Nebraska dealing with medical expense coverage under an auto insurance policy. The son of the named insured was pulled over by the police for speeding, and while the police were retrieving a breathalyzer, the son attempted to flee. He ran over one officer and pinned another between the cars and in order to prevent any further injuries, the pinned officer shot the son. The named insured sought med pay expenses and claimed the son's injuries were the result of an auto accident. The insurer resisted the claim and the Nebraska court had to settle the dispute.

In a case from Virginia , the court there discussed three items that insurers and insureds sometimes face when it comes to insurance coverage: scrivener's error, mutual mistake, and insurable interest. After a loss, the insurer sought reformation of the policy contract on the grounds of mutual mistake and scrivener's error, and failing that, alleged the claimant had no insurable interest in the property that was damaged.

A case from the 5th Circuit dealt with another issue that insurers and insureds often tangle over—the your work exclusion and the phrase ″that particular part″. The court offered a solid review of the exclusion and the phrase. And, the final case discussed in the Dec Page is close to this issue since it deals with a defective construction claim and the property damage exclusion; this case is from Texas.

Questions and Answers

There are four siblings that own a home in which their mother currently lives; one of the siblings lives in the house with the mother. Who should be listed as the named insured on the homeowners policy? See Owners, Named Insureds, and Additional Insureds. A burglary policy requires protective devices in places affording easy access. Does this mean doggie doors should have a proper locking device? See Crime Policies and Doggie Doors.

Gas leak from stove causes injuries to claimants. Does the pollution exclusion prevent coverage for the insured? See Pollution Exclusion and Heating Equipment Exception. How does the pollution exclusion on the railroad protective liability form apply? See Railroad Protective Liability Pollution Exclusion.

Legal Liability Coverage Form

This article provides an updated discussion of legal liability coverage as provided by the Legal Liability Coverage form, CP 00 40 06 07. See Legal Liability Coverage Form.

Inventory Shortages Exclusion

This article provides an updated discussion of the inventory shortages exclusion and relevant court cases. See Inventory Shortages Exclusion.