A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to licensees by a condition on the land if, but only if, (a) the possessor knows or has reason to know of the condition and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such licensees, and should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, and (b) he fails to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe, or to warn the licensees of the condition and the risk involved, and (c) the licensees do not know or have reason to know of the condition and the risk involved.Memel v. Reimer, 85 Wn.2d 685, 538 P.2d 517, 1975 Wash. LEXIS 918 (Wash. 1975)
An insurance company only has to cover a claim is the homeowner is liable.
I suggest you speak with an attorney in order to determine whether or not there are facts that might lead to liability.
This response is general in nature and is not legal advice. No attorney client relationship is formed by it. Further, the response does not represent the opinions or views of LexisNexis or its affiliated companies.
Answered on Oct 18th, 2013 at 4:27 PM