Markel Insurance

[tbloomer]

I received the following eMail from Bob Smith:

AFA members,

This is an advisory email concerning Business liability insurance with
Markel Insurance.

Markel Insurance covered my school. Two years ago I had a female student
who was enrolled by a private rehabilitation agency. I dismissed this
student at week four.

She has now filed suit alleging that 1) there was a breach of contract and
2) gross negligence for allowing another student to assault her, (a verbal
confrontation between her and another student).

I turned this suit into Markel Insurance. Markel says they have "no duty to
defend" because there are exclusions against breach of contract and assault.

I explained that I did not have a contract with this student. I had a
contract with the private rehabilitation agency. I explained that there was
no physical contact between students.

Markel claims that just the allegation of a contract is enough for them to
deny coverage, even though they are aware that no contract exists!

Markel claims that just the allegation of assault is enough for them to deny
coverage even though they cover me and I committed no assault and despite
the fact that there are 16 witnesses to the confrontation, with signed
statements that no assault occurred.

I have had to write a $10,000 dollar check to retain a private attorney to
answer the suit.

I posed the following scenario to Markel: If I am a farrier and Markel has
my business liability insurance (AFA recommended). I'm shoeing in a barn.
Two people (people I don't know) get into a fistfight. The noise scares the
horse. The horse flips out and injures himself. The horse owner sues the
two people fighting, the barn owner and me. Will Markel cover me? The
answer is NO. Since the injuries were a result of an assault Markel claims
they have no duty to cover!!!

Markel's decision to deny coverage speaks to the ethics and morality of this
corporation. If you have business liability coverage with Markel or if your
barn/stable owners use Markel you need to know that they will hang their
clients out to dry.

If you have any questions please feel free to call or email me at the
school.

Bob Smith
Pacific Coast Horseshoeing School
9675 Florin Road
Sacramento, CA 95829
Tel (916) 366-6064

[Rick Burten]

I too received this e-mail. On its face, it is quite troublesome. Of course, we don't know the other side of the story. Perhaps someone should contact Markel Insurance and see if they are willing to offer their side of the story.

It is also my understanding that the AFA is aware of this situation and is looking into it. What if anything comes of this remains to be seen.

For me, it is yet another cautionary tale to check, re-check and question closely, every aspect of my business insurance.

In the second scenario presented, my question would be as to what kind of insurance the farrier was carrying. If the insurance included Care, Custody and Control provisions, then it would be in the best interest of anyone who currently has this coverage to call his/her insurance agent and get an answer specific to their own situation. Better yet, get it in writing.

10:10AM 277 Jan2006: An Update:

I just spoke with Bryan Quinsey and he informed me of the following
1. The AFA is indeed looking into this matter
2. The AFA has not and does not recommend ANY insurance company
3. The AFA has listed those insurance companies that have been found to be willing and able to issue insurance(of what ever type/coverage) for farriers.

For those who have read Bob's e-mail, we now are aware that Bob was mistaken in his assumption that the AFA recommended/recommends Markel as an insurance provider.

Once again, we must always remember, Caveat Emptor (literally, 'let the buyer beware')

[Forgewizard]

This isn't the first time I've heard of problems with Markel Insurance. Markel seems to be a major insurer for learning institutions. Mainly gearde towards the accidents that happen on school grounds or the trip to and from school.

They are VERY strict in their perception of what does and doesn't constitute an "accident" and are extremely good at disclaiming.

I have been extremely pleased with my coverage and claims processing via my choice of health, accident, vision, dental insurance at "Mega-Life and Health".

They are geared specifically for the self-employed and have totally workable premiums! Unlike Blue cross and Blue shield's self employed insurance coverage, Mega-Life and Health actually COVERS you if you are hurt ON the job!

Regards,
Kim

[horseshoer123]

I would never us Markel, they tried to rip me off on a horse I was leasing and had to get insurance on, luckly I fought it and got my money back, left a real bad taste in my mouth for them.

[Gary_Miller]

10:10AM 277 Jan2006: An Update:

I just spoke with Bryan Quinsey and he informed me of the following
1. The AFA is indeed looking into this matter
2. The AFA has not and does not recommend ANY insurance company
3. The AFA has listed those insurance companies that have been found to be willing and able to issue insurance(of what ever type/coverage) for farriers.

For those who have read Bob's e-mail, we now are aware that Bob was mistaken in his assumption that the AFA recommended/recommends Markel as an insurance provider.

Once again, we must always remember, Caveat Emptor (literally, 'let the buyer beware')
If this is the case then the AFA is misleading their membership and needs to stop listing these companies as part of the Member Benifits - Insurance in their membership packets and on their web site.
By listing them and using the wording in the packet it gives an apperace that the AFA is recommending these companies to it members.

Note at the bottom of the flyer in the membership packet. By the way at the top it says Membership Benifits - INSURANCE.

The American Farriers's Association continues to monitor insurance benifits for it membership. Please feel free to direct all comments/suggestions/recommendations to the AFA Office -


Look to me that not only are they recommending these companies but they also are endorsing them as well.


Gary

[Rick Burten]

If this is the case then the AFA is misleading their membership and needs to stop listing these companies as part of the Member Benifits - Insurance in their membership packets and on their web site.
By listing them and using the wording in the packet it gives an apperace that the AFA is recommending these companies to it members.
Having read the information in the packet and on the website, it seems clear to me that other than the ADD automatic benefit for all paid members, the others are simply a list of companies, products available and contact names and numbers. Now I realize that this is found under the heading "Membership Benefits-Insurance", but it is also clearly stated that these are "Additional Insurance OPPORTUNITIES", reflecting the fact that the AFA is merely lisitng companies that have products available for the farrier.

Note at the bottom of the flyer in the membership packet. By the way at the top it says Membership Benifits - INSURANCE.

"The American Farriers's Association continues to monitor insurance benifits for it membership. Please feel free to direct all comments/suggestions/recommendations to the AFA Office -"


Look to me that not only are they recommending these companies but they also are endorsing them as well.
Gary
In point of fact, they have done neither. All that has been done is to present a list of those companies and their products that the AFA has found to be available to its membership. There may be and probably are, other companies out there that can provide the various coverages. If anyone knows of these, all they have to do is contact the AFA with the information, and that information, after verification, will be added to the information list.

You will note that nowhere either in the literature or on the website, does the AFA make any written endorsements or recommendations. In fact, were one to inquire, I doubt that anyone at the office would take an OFFICIAL stance on recommending or endorsing any of the companies or their products.

That said, like each of us, I'm willing to wager that they have personal preferences, having nothing to do with who is listed.

[ray steele]

Rick,

I'm sure that what you posted is technically correct and true, I myself find your explanation interesting. While the AFA may in fact be "merely listing companies" and why may I ask would the AFA not seek out the other companies that may provide like services or at least let it be known that the AFA is willing to list as you said on the site. Of course after verification.

The explanation almost sounds like a defense. Now surmise that this, possible free advertising exists, how big a pamphlet /web page are they ready to create for free.


If other companies could be so easily added, then why haven't they been notified? I bet they would jump at the chance.

My point here is not to slam the AFA or the companies, I don't know the other side of the stories, but it appears to me that the same line keeps coming around, and it easily takes on an appearence of " best kept little secrets that can always be found out if one know where to look" . True or not, appearence is often 1st and last impression. But is that in the memberships best interest!

I think that there is a need for org like the AFA, state / areas org and barefoot orgs etc. if only to keep the others honest and totally above board. Just listening to your defense ,makes me think back to the time that I gave up my membership and think I was correct. Rick , you've done alot of defending this year, do ya think some others in the know should take some notice and quit putting any AFA member in that position?

See you in Cinccy.

Regards

Ray Steele

[Rick Burten]

While the AFA may in fact be "merely listing companies" and why may I ask would the AFA not seek out the other companies that may provide like services or at least let it be known that the AFA is willing to list as you said on the site. Of course after verification.
I too love a good conspiracy. Unfortunately, I don't think one exists here. I think that the AFA is continually checking with companies and when they find one that has the products needed, they get added to the list. Just looking at the current list and comparing it with that of a few years ago, seems to bear this out. And, I think that if any member of the AFA has information along these lines, all that person would have to do is let the AFA know about it.

The explanation almost sounds like a defense. Now surmise that this, possible free advertising exists, how big a pamphlet /web page are they ready to create for free.
Ray, what brand of cars/trucks et al do you drive? Is there a manufacturer's logo in prominence? Is there a dealership sticker visible? Now those entities not only are getting continued free advertising, but you actually paid them to allow you to do the advertising for them.

And how big of a free space is created? We list sites and products all the time if we think they will be of value/benefit to our friends, clients, collegues, peers. Somehow I don't think that listing these companies, for the reason(s) given, is a bad thing for the membership. Perhaps if one looks at it in the light of the association just trying to do something good for the membership, one won't see a conspiracy or an 'empire of evil'. Seems to me that all the AFA has done is do some of the legwork/research for me and the other members. Nothing more, nothing less.

If other companies could be so easily added, then why haven't they been notified?
How do you know they haven't been notified? And, perhaps its not so easy to add a company. There is a fair amount of research that first goes into the effort and you and I don't know how much staff time has been allocated for that effort. You could probably ask Jeff Ridley or Bryan Quincey and get a very definitive answer. Alternatively, I could do that for you. But since you're not a member my heretofore and still unchartered farrier association, I guess you'll have to do your own legwork on this one. :D

My point here is not to slam the AFA or the companies, I don't know the other side of the stories, but it appears to me that the same line keeps coming around, and it easily takes on an appearence of " best kept little secrets that can always be found out if one know where to look" . True or not, appearence is often 1st and last impression. But is that in the memberships best interest!
What insurance secrets do you think the AFA is hiding from its membership. Yet again, I'm intrigued by the whisper of conspiracy. Since a conspiracy needs a motive, what would you say is the AFA's motive here?

I think that there is a need for org like the AFA, state / areas org and barefoot orgs etc. if only to keep the others honest and totally above board. Just listening to your defense ,makes me think back to the time that I gave up my membership and think I was correct.
And that reason would be....?

Rick , you've done alot of defending this year, do ya think some others in the know should take some notice and quit putting any AFA member in that position?
Ummm did you ever consider that others may indeed have taken notice but with my willing cooperation have decided to let me sally forth? After all, I could and still can choose to stop doing what i'm doing. Perhaps those "others in the know" prefer , like many in similar positions, to maintain what has been commonly referred to as "plausible deniability". I don't know that to be true or am even willing to hazzard a guess as to its truthfulness. But if you had a loose cannon like me , willing, ready and able to fire volleys both in offense and defense, wouldn't you, prudently, make best use of the available resources?

See you in Cinccy.
To be sure! :D

[Gary_Miller]

Rick, I see your point and I have to agree with your explination.
However, I feel that there is still the appreance of endorsement/recommendation.

Gary

[Rick Burten]

Rick, I see your point and I have to agree with your explination.
However, I feel that there is still the appreance of endorsement/recommendation.

Gary

Perhaps a disclaimer needs to be added? ("The presence of the name, available product(s ) or contact person(s) of any company on this list shall not constitute or be construed as being an endorsement or recommendation by the AFA..." or the equivalent).

I'll suggest it to Bryan when I see him in Cincy. Better yet, send him an e-mail(bquincey@americanfarriers.org) and personally offer him your insights and suggestions.

[brian robertson]

I believe at a past AFA convention in KY there was a speaker from Markel Insurance Co. that gave a presentation. I'm pretty sure the woman was an owner of Markel and gave the pitch that her company was one of the few companies that would provide coverage for shoers. Maybe Markel was the only co. that the AFA could find willing to talk about insurance for shoers. Did seem like an endorsement at the time to me.
I have heard both good and bad stories about Markel from clients with horse mortality claims. So you never really know about any insurance until you have a claim. It's always much better never having to file that claim.

[tbloomer]

I looked in to Markel several years ago. Didn't like what I found, but also haven't found a viable alternative. It seems that they are the only game in town for farriers. If they are going to wiggle out of claims like this, then they deserve all the bad press they get.

Meanwhile I can't help but wonder why farrier liability insurance is so hard to find - other than the $20k maximum policy that Markel sells, I don't believe there is any other company that provides professional practice liability for farriers. I would be nice if there was some kind of national farrier association that could work with the insurance companies to come up with better options. Maybe I'll start one.

Tom Bloomer, CF

[ray steele]

Ummm did you ever consider that others may indeed have taken notice but with my willing cooperation have decided to let me sally forth? After all, I could and still can choose to stop doing what i'm doing. Perhaps those "others in the know" prefer , like many in similar positions, to maintain what has been commonly referred to as "plausible deniability". I don't know that to be true or am even willing to hazzard a guess as to its truthfulness. But if you had a loose cannon like me , willing, ready and able to fire volleys both in offense and defense, wouldn't you, prudently, make best use of the available resources?





]

Rick the above paragraph is the one that I based my comment on *the voice of the American farrier*. By the way, since T.N. brought it up,it seems to me that you,in this situation may be the best to ask if in any of my posts have you ever detected any alluding to or outright anti semitism or semetism for that matter?

Ray

[Rick Burten]

Rick said: "Ummm did you ever consider that others may indeed have taken notice but with my willing cooperation have decided to let me sally forth? After all, I could and still can choose to stop doing what i'm doing. Perhaps those "others in the know" prefer , like many in similar positions, to maintain what has been commonly referred to as "plausible deniability". I don't know that to be true or am even willing to hazzard a guess as to its truthfulness. But if you had a loose cannon like me , willing, ready and able to fire volleys both in offense and defense, wouldn't you, prudently, make best use of the available resources?

Ray,
Where does that comment say that I speak for the American Farrier? I see a "maybe" and "perhaps", and "I don't know" none of which should lead you to presume that I do infact speak for either the American Farrier, or the AFA.

If you are intimating that there is some conspiracy going on between me and all the rest of the American farriers or the AFA, let your mind rest easy. There isn't. I state, categorically, that no one in any leadership position in the AFA, whether that be a member of the EC, the BOD, or the ED, or their representative(s) has ever contacted me and asked me to be their spokesman. Nor, during any conversations I initiated with any of the afore mentioned individuals, has any of them asked me to speak for them. Whether or not you choose to believe me will be a function of whether or not you feel I am honest and truthful.
By the way, since T.N. brought it up,it seems to me that you,in this situation may be the best to ask if in any of my posts have you ever detected any alluding to or outright anti semitism or semetism for that matter?
Nope, not once not ever. And since I have been accused of playing the religion/race card, I would point out that I brought that subject up as a historical reference matter that does indeed bear on my POV. I was not then, nor am I now, looking for sympathy or any other like thing.
But , IMNTBCHO, that background(as well as the historical record of how Jews have been generally treated by others) is germane to the conversation that was at hand.

Besides, I'm used to anti-semitism(even though my hackles still rise at the same rate as my tolerance level falls) and the bigots who practice it. It has always amused me when some follower of Jesus professes their love of Jesus(and/or Mary and/or Joseph, or in a different religious context, Abraham) and hatred of Jews. While I am far removed from being considered a theologian, it does cause consternation when I point out the obvious.

Rick
(If you(the collective) are reading this, thank a teacher. If you(the collective) are reading this in English, thank a soldier.)

[Cyber Farrier]

Focus, people, focus. Regardless of the tangent this thread has taken, get back to and stay with the subject: Markel Insurance, or insurance in general.


Baron

[Rick Burten]

Focus, people, focus. Regardless of the tangent this thread has taken, get back to and stay with the subject: Markel Insurance, or insurance in general.
Baron
Sorry Baron,
I was just responding to Ray's stated question/concern.

Rick

[Phil Armitage]

I have been thinking about the case that Markel denied and I have to be honest. I have always thought Insurance coverage is for problems you as the farrier has caused. I am not too sure if Markel is in the wrong here.

[Dave Purves]

Liability insurance (no matter who the insurance company is) is not to pay the damages you're getting sued for, it is for paying the lawyer to defend you. If someone is trying to sue you for something that happened while you were working, then I would think the insurance company would pony up and do thier job. I have liability insurance so if some jackass decides to walk into the barn while I'm working and fall out of the hay loft and sue me for distracting him while he stacks hay, my insurance company will pay the lawyer to defend me against un-warranted lawsuits. But if they spend thier time denying me coverage for one clause or another then who needs it?

But let's face it, now a days insurance in general is just a big rip-off. Health insurance isn't worth the paper it's written on. As medical costs go up due to insurance companies denying coverage, and the outrageous amount of mal-practice lawsuits and the cost of mal-practice insurance. Think about it, the insurance company wins both ways. You pay outragous premiums for the right to go to a doctor that's paying even more outrageous premiums to treat you so you can pay outrageous prices for drugs and treatments that the insurance companies price fix anyway. I don't see that it's much different with liablity, auto, life, or any other type of insurance. Except that mechanics and auto body people still determine the cost of repairs to your car, doctors and hospitals are helpless when it comes to what to charge, they are at the mercy of whichever insurance company you happen to have.

Dave

[markelvictim]

I've just had a very bad experience with Markel and my blacksmith. Today I was advised that Markel was practicing "legal extortion" (source - insurance commission), and that while it was admittedly wrong - there is nothing that could be done about it. Further I was told that while their practice was legal, it was not practiced by many other insurance companies because it isn't really right. Without going into more detail, I would strongly recommend that everyone avoids this company. They are the Enron of insurance companies in my opinion.

[calshoer]

The thing about Markel is that they seem to be almost "the only game in town" for farriers.
I do know a FEW (very few) farriers who also have farms or ranches and got farier coverage added on to their regular farm insurance. But since I dont have a farm, and needed coverage to work in certain barns I am stuck with markel.Almost all the other general insurance companies I called either refused to even consider farrier coverage, and those that would wanted exorbantant premiums and would exclude nearly everything, including the use of my forge ! .
When applying to Markel, the service in trying to get the application processed was almost non existanct, it took MONTJHS and several phone calls to find out where it was in the approval process. Therefore I am really worried about what kind if service I might get if (god forbid) I ever do have an incident. As to exclusions,I did find that they are clear about that, there is a lot of them and you just have to be sure to read them all. And for those of you who take DOGS to work.... READ your policy...you may not be covered if the dog creates any sort of problem.
Patty

[markelvictim]

Calshoer - I think you may want to have your farrier insurance policy more closely examined. What you will learn is that Markel is really writing you a care custody and control policy which will only cover you for $25,000 per incident if you hurt someone's horse. You may be shocked to learn this. You really don't have a mal-practice farrier insurance. Markel (in my opinion) is deceptive in their marketing of this insurance product. It is very hard to understand - but trust me - I've just done my research. When you apply for insurance using this application http://www.markelinsurance.com/NR/rdonlyres/292B1263-934B-4A70-8227-BBB25253A162/0/Farrier0206.pdf you may be confused into thinking that you've bought "farrier insurance" and that there is a 300,000 occurance ready for you. Wrong - read the paragraph below - you are actually getting $25,000 worth of care custody and control coverage that Markel may end up paying after about 4 months (my experience) with unreasonable conditions attached. If you're shoeing horses worth more than $25,000, better pay attention.

[Cyber Farrier]

Markelvictim,

Considering the serious nature of the remarks and accusations you're making here, I will only allow you to post in the future if you use your real name as your screen name. Anyone making statements such as you are should have the cojones to step into the light and let everyone know who you are. Since only I can change a registered screen name, send me a private message letting me know what it is, and I'll change it.

Baron

[tbloomer]

This is a really old thread, but the facts ARE that the Markel "farrier" policy is only going to give you $25k in malpractice insurance - as in harming a horse. The rest of the coverage is in case you burn down the barn or cause some kind of property damage or cause harm to a person.

[Phil Armitage]

Calshoer - I think you may want to have your farrier insurance policy more closely examined. What you will learn is that Markel is really writing you a care custody and control policy which will only cover you for $25,000 per incident if you hurt someone's horse. You may be shocked to learn this. You really don't have a mal-practice farrier insurance. Markel (in my opinion) is deceptive in their marketing of this insurance product. It is very hard to understand - but trust me - I've just done my research. When you apply for insurance using this application http://www.markelinsurance.com/NR/rdonlyres/292B1263-934B-4A70-8227-BBB25253A162/0/Farrier0206.pdf you may be confused into thinking that you've bought "farrier insurance" and that there is a 300,000 occurance ready for you. Wrong - read the paragraph below - you are actually getting $25,000 worth of care custody and control coverage that Markel may end up paying after about 4 months (my experience) with unreasonable conditions attached. If you're shoeing horses worth more than $25,000, better pay attention.

The only way you can be sued for the value of a horse is if your guilty of gross negligence. Were you guilty of gross negligence?

[CodySmith]

The rule of law (at least in California where Bob is), is that an insurance company must defend its insured if the allegations contained in the complaint present a claim that is "potentially" within the coverage of the policy. If there is a clear exclusion of coverage or insuring the alleged loss would be illegal (e.g., intentionally wrongful acts), the insurer can refuse to defend, however, if does so at its own risk. In other words, if the insurer wrongfully refuses to provide a defense to its insured and it is later determined (via a declaratory relief action brought by the insured against the insurer) that there was, in fact, a duty to defend, the insurer must not only reimburse the insured for all defense costs, it must also pay any judgment against the insured, even if the amount of the judgment is in excess of the policy limits. Of course, it is incumbent upon the insured when faced with a denial of coverage and defense to file suit directly against the insurance company. Until someone is willing to take on the insurer with regard to its interpretation of the policy's scope of coverage, the insurer will continue to deny defense coverage with impunity. Whether Markel is in the wrong here would require an complete analysis of the facts and policy language, which I don't have. The point is, you don't have to accept the denial of coverage and defense and, if you think the loss is covered, you should consider spending some of your hard-earned money on an insurance coverage attorney to get a coverage opinion. If the attorney is confident that the duty to defend did, in fact, arise, one option is to stipulate to a judgment with an agreement that it can only be collected as against the insurance company and then file suit to establish that the insurer breached its duty to defend. This is obviously a sophisticated area of the law and should not be undertaken without competent legal advise.

[SlowShoe]

I cant believe you people are accusing a insurance company of being immoral.. Why don't you start by naming one insurance company that is not immoral in its practices? Good luck. Insurance companies should be grouped along with most lawyers, politicians and other criminals. This would be the "Can not be trusted" group.