Posted on 08/16/2006 3:40:41 AM PDT by Brilliant
Would his loss be covered by an uninsured motorist clause?
The suicide had insurance I would think that would negate under or uninsured and he's right back in the same boat.
BTW this man was going about his business and was involved in an accident through no fault of his own you shouldn't blame him for wanting his medical bills paid and being compensated for his loss. I can't imagine an insurance company not being held responsible for the damages of the driver they insure.
Workman's comp probably paid him what it owed, but workman's comp doesn't pay much. If the accident was someone else's fault, then he should be able to collect the difference from their carrier, in addition to what he got from workman's comp.
Well, it depends on what the policy says and what the law says. It seems surprising to me, though, that if someone intentionally runs into you in an effort to commit suicide, then you don't have a claim against their insurance company, but if it's an accident, then you do.
Maybe that's the way it is, but I would not assume that is the case simply because a jury said so. Afterall, it's a legal issue, not a factual issue, and it's the judge who decides legal issues, not the jury. The judge let the case go to the jury, so he apparently thought that the legal issue was in the trucker's favor.
The other possibility is that the judge agreed that the policy did not cover suicide, but he wanted the jury to decide whether the other driver was actually trying to commit suicide, or whether it was simply an accident. I suspect that the guy did not leave a suicide note.
<< Would his loss be covered by an uninsured motorist clause? >>
I would think so, but by the trucker's own insurance company. Since the other driver's insurance was revoked due to the suicide clause, the other driver is considered uninsured/underinsured. The trucker went after the wrong insurance company.
This is really sad; I could imagine an accident like this would qualify for some time off, even unpaid.
I thought this article was about the trucker who hit the suicidal father and was suing the dead fathers insurance company for medical bills. The trucker's insurance should cover his bills. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Gilbert Gotfried........
<< If he didn't, he self insured himself and failed to save for the risk. >>
I agree with self-responsibility, but it is difficult to protect yourself over and above HIGH insurance costs that are mandatory. I don't know why the trucker didn't go after his own insurance company instead, because clearly the other driver's insurance is not responsible for deliberate actions as you mention.
A different wrinkle on this: Does this also mean your own insurance company is not liable when you are the 'recipient' of a terrorist act?
So are insurers of drunk drivers going to be able to use this to not pay for damages?
He should sue Randall's estate for pretty much everything, no Progressive auto insurance.
Almost without doubt this would be excluded from coverage, just like acts of war, sabotage, etc.
Besides, what's Uncle Sugar for anyway? Isn't that where every victim goes when the insurance company ducks out the backdoor? ;>)
bump for later read...
Good grief, don't you have a heart? This guy isn't the one who tried to kill himself! And it was his own insurance company that denied his claim because someone else tried to kill themselves and was responsible for this guys injuries. So if someone hits you with his vehicle, puts you in the hospital and causes you to lose your job, you should be denied insurance coverage if the person who did this to you was suicidal? Even if you had uninsured motorist, you would still be denied a claim because it was an attempted suicide. And your health insurance wouldn't pay a dime, again, because the root cause was an attempted suicide. I guess you could carry it all the way to 9/11. No one should have gotten a dime in insurance or government money because it was a suicide attack and no one should profit from suicides, even if they hurt other people? Is that what you are saying? It sounds like it to me. I pray you don't find yourself in this situation and you can pay for someone elses damages out of your own pocket.
Frankly....if some idiot used my truck to off himself and his kids.....I probably wouldn't want to go to work the next day either.....I guess you're just a hell of a lot more hardcore than myself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.