tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4754540220266106237.post3323185266859367416..comments2024-03-17T16:43:50.668-04:00Comments on Coverage Counsel: Summary Judgment to Homeowners Insurer on Insured's Failure to Reasonable Care to Maintain Heat Affirmed By Third DepartmentRoy A. Murahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06367888044845855898noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4754540220266106237.post-70871530344929613922018-05-22T10:42:13.763-04:002018-05-22T10:42:13.763-04:00Permission to appeal is being sought. There is no ...Permission to appeal is being sought. There is no requirement under the policy that a caretaker be hired or even a friend or family be asked to enter a person's home during the winter to check on the heat. The insured was away from the premises due to an injury she eventually died from. She gave an statement to the carrier's representative while she was alive that the heat was on. The defendant's expert established that there was little gas usage but did not establish that the thermostat was down too low or off and when the boiler stopped working or specifically why it stopped working such as power outage, pilot light going out or other reasons other than low gas usage. None of the heating equipment was examined or tested. Did it fail the day after she left or several days after she left the premises? If people go to Florida or other warm climates in the winter do they now have to hire someone to "maintain the heat"? Isn't it a question of fact and not as a matter of law under the facts of this case whether the heat was maintained ? The terms "maintain the heat" are not defined any further under the policy. Lets hope the court of Appeals takes it up.Gustave DeTragliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872807558565619226noreply@blogger.com