Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Blueflag

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.


11 posted on 07/15/2011 9:06:52 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: swain_forkbeard

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.

IMHO.

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


32 posted on 07/15/2011 10:53:07 AM PDT by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitur: non vehere est inermus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson