Harco is reporting this loss is currently on trial in Los Angeles, CA. This loss involves a wrongful death action of a 16 year old male passenger on the insured’s bus (open air double decker) in Los Angeles CA. The claimant was attending his friends sweet sixteen party, where the friends’ parents (Schlossberg), charted the tour bus from the insured. During the tour, it is alleged, the mother (Mrs. Schlossberg) of the girl hosting the party provided alcohol to the minors and left them unsupervised. At some point during the tour the bus entered the freeway and was traveling at approximately 55 mph. It is believed the claimant was standing at this time, possibly on a seat, when he was struck by an overpass. The claimant succumbed to his injuries
…show more content…
First, the court has ruled in favor of the plaintiff with respect to the alter ego argument; that the four entities Starline USA, Starline of Hollywood, Screamline and Movieland Charter are alter egos of one another and qualify as a named insured under Harco’s Commercial Auto policy. Furthermore, California Insurance Code states, an occurrence involving a motor vehicle, where multiple policies are available, the motor vehicle’s auto policy is primary and all other liability policies shall be excess. Harco’s defense counsel estimates there is $12,000,000 in excess coverage over Harco’s $5,000,000 policy limit. However, this is …show more content…
The witness was a passenger on the upper deck and was struck in the face by a tree branch sustaining a disfiguring facial injury. The witness tried the case against the insured and was awarded a verdict of $3,515,986 (claim # 22717*2013*16). Based on the events of this loss, the plaintiff’s counsel will argue, the insured had prior notice and failed in their duty to warn their passengers of the hazardous condition. The other issues that were detrimental to the insured’s defense, was the safety manager’s testimony; who acknowledged, the insured’s maintenance department was directed to post warning signs on the bus, however, this was never
First, the court has ruled in favor of the plaintiff with respect to the alter ego argument; that the four entities Starline USA, Starline of Hollywood, Screamline and Movieland Charter are alter egos of one another and qualify as a named insured under Harco’s Commercial Auto policy. Furthermore, California Insurance Code states, an occurrence involving a motor vehicle, where multiple policies are available, the motor vehicle’s auto policy is primary and all other liability policies shall be excess. Harco’s defense counsel estimates there is $12,000,000 in excess coverage over Harco’s $5,000,000 policy limit. However, this is …show more content…
The witness was a passenger on the upper deck and was struck in the face by a tree branch sustaining a disfiguring facial injury. The witness tried the case against the insured and was awarded a verdict of $3,515,986 (claim # 22717*2013*16). Based on the events of this loss, the plaintiff’s counsel will argue, the insured had prior notice and failed in their duty to warn their passengers of the hazardous condition. The other issues that were detrimental to the insured’s defense, was the safety manager’s testimony; who acknowledged, the insured’s maintenance department was directed to post warning signs on the bus, however, this was never