Liability Insurance and 30.06

[Conagher]

I performed a search, but did not notice this specific spin on liability insurance requirements. As we are all aware, proof of liability insurance is required for a licensed driver in the state of Texas. Could it be an effective deterrent to businesses posting 30.06 signs if they were required by law to have liability insurance of a certain $ amount if they post a valid 30.06 sign, and subjected to providing proof of insurance on demand of a LEO?

Thoughts?

Thanks and Have a nice day!

[camlott]

I posted a similar question last week, though I never really followed up on it.

I work in the insurance industry (specifically General Liability).

***I will speak in general terms since there are more exceptions / caveats than I could possibly list here.***

As a property owner (either residence or business) you are responsible for the safety and well being of EVERYONE that enters your premises. I have even seen cases of criminals winning against a property owner for getting hurt during the process of burglarizing a property. In other words, they were on the property illegally and unknowingly to the owner. (Fell through a skylight, lawyer argued the skylight was unsafe) This is not the only case I have seen like this. It is actually quite common for a criminal to sue a property owner when they get hurt during the process of a crime (dog bites, cut by broken glass etc.).

I talked to a fellow CHLer who is also the president of an insurance company that deals exclusively with liability insurance and asked about the 30.06. He said it really doesn't make the property owner more liable, however it would probably make the argument for a lawyer easier to win if they did have a 30.06 posted. If and when this actually comes up in court and the insurance company loses... you should expect to see a lot less 30.06 signs. Insurance companies will likely increase rates for companies that post, or exclude coverages if they post. (unless the state of Texas steps in and won't allow that) as of right now, I do not think there have been any test cases.

More specifically to your question... Most homeowners and business property policies already have some liability coverage with them. Most businesses open to the general public are required to carry liability coverage (generally speaking).

[bdickens]

I've personally seen a grand total of three legitimate 30.06 signs in the entire Houston Metropolitan area.

[bizarrenormality]

I think property owners have rights. Even businesses. But I think the penalty should be the same as carrying a cell phone, a pack of cigarettes, or "outside food or drink" where those are prohibited.

[camlott]

I think property owners have rights. Even businesses. But I think the penalty should be the same as carrying a cell phone, a pack of cigarettes, or "outside food or drink" where those are prohibited.

[Conagher]

Thank you for your thoughtful replies.

My guess is that most businesses would have some level of liability coverage as well. However, the deterrent factor could be two-fold: 1) specifying an amount, and 2) burden of proof else the risk your business being “impounded” or closed to public access.

I appreciate, and am personally very supportive of private property rights. However, I do believe there should be a distinction for a piece of property which is not open to public access and/or has been designated as no trespassing; versus one that is designated a business in which the public is openly invited and in fact solicits public admittance.

Thanks and Have a Nice Day.

[A-R]

I appreciate, and am personally very supportive of private property rights. However, I do believe there should be a distinction for a piece of property which is not open to public access and/or has been designated as no trespassing; versus one that is designated a business in which the public is openly invited and in fact solicits public admittance.

open to public vs. private/no trespassing is truly the dividing line here for me in terms of property owners' rights vs. general public's rights while on that property

[gregthehand]

I have even seen cases of criminals winning against a property owner for getting hurt during the process of burglarizing a property. In other words, they were on the property illegally and unknowingly to the owner. (Fell through a skylight, lawyer argued the skylight was unsafe) This is not the only case I have seen like this. It is actually quite common for a criminal to sue a property owner when they get hurt during the process of a crime (dog bites, cut by broken glass etc.)

If you're talking about Bodine v. Enterprise High School than that's not exactly what happened. The guy was not burglarizing the high school he was just walking on the roof. Trespassing just the same though. But anyhow he fell through a sky light, that had been painted over to match the roof, above the gym thirty feet and landed on his head. Now he's a quadriplegic. He got something like $260,000 and $1200 a month for the rest of his life. President Regan gave a speech telling a distortion of that story and distortions of others during a speech back in the 1980s in order to push tort reform. Another one he used was the psychic that lost her power during a CT scan and sued. What really happened was that the doctor administered her iodine after she said she was allergic and then did the CT scan. Now she has debilitating headaches for the rest of her life. Never did she claim she lost her psychic ability just that it was hard to work with the headaches and she happened to be a psychic.

[camlott]

If you're talking about Bodine v. Enterprise High School than that's not exactly what happened. The guy was not burglarizing the high school he was just walking on the roof. Trespassing just the same though. But anyhow he fell through a sky light, that had been painted over to match the roof, above the gym thirty feet and landed on his head. Now he's a quadriplegic. He got something like $260,000 and $1200 a month for the rest of his life.

This is not the case I am speaking of. The incident I know of took place at an oilfield welding shop in Midland. The guy was looking for a way to get in so he could steal tools etc. He did break some bones, but was not paralyzed. We still had to pay his medical expenses etc.