A friend of mine just lost his house to an infamous flaming ford a couple of weeks back.  He did not have insurance on the house, but the vehicle was not his, so we figured that the property damage part of the cars coverage would at least pay some money.  Well guess what Farmers came up with?  Since the car that caused the fire burned the house down, then it is not covered under the policy.  Yes it sounds ridiculous but apparently since it was an apparent defect in the vehicle, they will not pay one red cent towards the damage the house sustained.  Now I know this will be going to court, but if you have farmers, ask your agent how they would treat a similar incident.  It seems a cop-out, since the standard procedure in lets say an uninsured driver hitting you is pay the damage then sue the hell out of the other guy.  Not here.  They have agreed to pay the car(full coverage), but the house can stay burned.  Before any smart ass comments on "get insurance", in our town we are rated as not having any fire protection, and this house proved it.  The fire house is across the street from my business and 1 mile from the gentlemans house.  It still burned to the ground because they did have enough water or training to fight it properly!!!!  The car was in the garage, and had just been placed there when it went up.  The gentleman has two kids in college and is just another worker bee trying to make a living.  He could pay the tution or the insurance.  We have managed to raise a tidy sum to help him rebuild, but it will take time to settle with Ford, if at all, and he still needs to pay all his previous bills plus now try to replace what he lost.  Everybody came out all right, but just the clothes on their back.  Ask your agent, and pin the answer down.  I no longer have them, they can ROT.

With insurance fraud running rampant these days, I can see why they won't pay. Also, who in their right mind would not have homeowners insurance. GAD! [:O]
AB

man that's a bad deal, with all fairness a insurance policy is a legal binding contract, so if the policy does not exclude or define coverage then it could be covered, have his attorney review it.

quote  "in our town we are rated as not having any fire protection"
[b]carbonblack[/b] are you saying you can't buy insurance at all or the cost is very high, if he has a loan they might have coverage on the home that he not aware of.

I beg to differ.  Apparently Farmers [i]is[/i]  paying - the owner of the car.

The owner of the car is not responsible for the fire (you admit this yourself.)  The insurance carried by the car owner is for two things:  1) to protect the owner against loss that is not his fault (which it is doing), and 2) to compensate others when the owner does something wrong (which he didn't.)  Your example of an uninsured driver is not valid.  If the car owner had smashed into the house and then the car burst into flames, THEN Farmer's would owe the homeowner - the insurance covers that.

Farmer's does not, legally or morally, owe the homeowner anything.  If you can prove the fire was caused by a defect in the car, the car manufacturer does.  Just because it would be NICE if Farmer's shelled out some money, it doesn't mean they SHOULD.

Sorry about your friend not having insurance, and sorrier still that the FD wasn't able to save the house.  You pays your money and you takes your chances.  He lost.  It happens.

So if the insured is not driving the vehicle, the coverage for property damage to others may or may not kick in?  I can come up with a scenario or two where that would leave the insured in a real bind.  Like a manual stick shift that is parked on a steep incline with the parking brake on, but not quite tight enough, could roll down and cause an accident.  Whose paying?  It appears to be an exit to avoid responsibility, for coverage that was purchased.  In Texas, like in many other states, liability insurance is required by law on any vehicle that operates on the roadways.  Can anybody clarify the logic involved in determining whose liability it is and who pays?  I understand Kbaker's  point, but it seems to leave the insured vulnerable, which is why you buy insurance in the first place.  As far as homeowners insurance is concerned, the rates are fairly high, and in some cases impossible to obtain, because of the lack of fire protection.  I still cannot find a carrier for my house, as it is rural with no fire hydrant closeby, and the water lines are not sufficient to support a hydrant in any case.  There may be coverage available under a "farm" (agriculture not co) plan, but the insured must meet certain income qualifications, as in being a farmer.  thanks for your responses, and info is appreciated.

Ever price homeowners insurance somewhere with a large fraud rate and terrible fire coverage?  Three years of insurance would cost me more than I spent building my house!  When I got the last quote, the agent gave me a long list of "improvements" I'd have to make before they'd offer me a lower rate.  Obviously, if I had a large, new house I would have insurance, but in a small, old, and cheap house it isn't always worth the great expense.  Strangely, insurance (the policy is called renter's insurance even though I'm not renting ... hmmm) to cover the contents of the house is only about $200 per year.  The contents of my house are worth several times what the house is worth so for much less money I have decent coverage without having to go to the expense of buying homeowners insurance or the expense of making improvements that I don't need.

I will admit having homeowners insurance would be very nice at times.  About 13 years ago, someone drove off of the road and into my yard.  The driver was hurt when his Jeep hit a tree in my yard.  His insurance company, State Farm, sued me for his medical bills, but I quickly got them to drop the suit after sending them a copy of my last few tax returns.  The old quote about not being able to squeeze blood from a stone applied.  One small advantage of not having much is that you don't need much insurance to protect what you do have from a lawsuit.z

That's the deal all right.  Liability insurance covers acts done by the policyholder with the insured vehicle.  The very act of parking the car in a garage is not the act that caused the damage. If he ran the car into the garage, caused the fire, and the house subsequently burned down, that would be a different story.

A simple layman's test would be: "Who did the wrong is responsible."

Tell me, in the example you gave, who did the "wrong"?  Driver? Nope.  Vehicle Manufacturer? Maybe.  

Regarding Farmer's position: It is the same postiion you will find at any other company. Simply because, based on the above, it is the right position.