Damage to Neighbor's Residence Caused by Insured's Teenager

May 11, 2015

Facts: Our named insured set up a tarp in his backyard so his fifteen-year-old son could hit hockey pucks into the tarp during the winter months of 2014/2015. The insured's son had at least ten pucks that he could hit. Every time the insured's son missed the tarp with the puck, he would hit the neighbor's vinyl siding. The son would have to go into the neighbor's yard to pick-up the pucks and then start over again. The insured's next door neighbor's son contacted our insured last week advising that his mom's vinyl siding on the one end of her house was completely destroyed by the insured son's hockey pucks. The damage is quite obvious (dents, cracks, and holes). The neighbor that lives there is ninety years old and never knew this was going on. Her siding was struck approximately 100 times. The insured's son never told him that this was going on.

Questions:

1. Does this meet the definition of “occurrence”?

2. When does this activity of hitting hockey pucks into the neighbor's siding become expected and intended?

3. Is there any coverage for the damaged siding under Section II – Liability Coverages?

4. Is there coverage under Section II – Additional Coverages for damage to property of others up to $1,000?

 

Ohio Subscriber

You have a unique situation. Yes, the hockey pucks hitting the house constitute an occurrence; the repeated or continuous exposure to a harmful condition, which is the hockey pucks hitting the house. While the hitting of the hockey pucks was intended and expected, the damage to the house was not. However, as the son was fifteen years old, after the first few times the puck hit the house someone that age could reasonably be expected to work out the cause and effect and could be held responsible for the expected damage to the neighbor's property. That portion of coverage is excluded since a fifteen-year-old could be held to make that connection. Damage to property of others is restricted if the damage is intentional, and it was not intended here, it just should have been expected. So, the $1,000 for damage to property of others should be paid out, but the insured owes for the rest of the damage to the neighbor's property out of his own pocket.

 

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis