It’s the attacker’s inurance company, and the contract (probably) excludes paying for any damages incurred through willful behavior or in the commission of a crime. I find that entirely reasonable.
OK, but that means a civil suit, and they’ll be included.
I realize from a contracting standpoint, it’s a reasonable exclusion, just like act of war. But in this case it’d be easier just to pay (at least some of) the claim and avoid the costs of a civil suit they’d otherwise be enjoined to.
p.s. from the looks of the defendant, she’s (the victim) lucky she didn’t have to file under the uninsured motorist portion of her own coverage.
p.p.s. If I intentionally change lanes (but fail to see your car) and strike your vehicle in the process, I did what I intended to do and incurred/caused damages in the process. Am I now not covered? I mean it WAS an intenttional act to change lanes. The perp’s intent in this story was not to damage the vehicle - rather her intent was to keep the children safe. ;-p