Posted on 08/16/2006 3:40:41 AM PDT by Brilliant
Oh good God was that really nesessary.I don't know what's happened to FR in the last year but it seems alot of people are hanging by a thread and just looking for someone to jump on.
There should be NO benefit from it. A payment by the insuror would BE a benefit from suicide.
Since tort-case juries are so notorious for dishing out massive awards to the most questionable of plaintiffs, what caused this one to screw over a highly sympathetic victim? Makes you go "hmmmmmmmm", doesn't it?
Wow, so the stuff you eat and use every day gets to you by Star Trek transporter beam in your neighborhood?
#1 - the truck driver should not be penalized for the actions of the suicidal driver. The suicidal driver (or estate) should be responsible for anything not covered by worker's compensation....as the article implies that the truck driver was working at the time....
Which also puts a light on his employer:
The story says the driver was fired from his job when he didn't go to work just days after the accident. If he was truly injured, and fired for not being able to work - the company could be in legal trouble....unless there is FAR more to this story.
But automobile liability insurance covers the driver of the vehicle's liability. I have never seen a disclaimer for suicide or "intentional acts"... It simply covers the driver's actions.
No, the car had insurance just not a covered loss.The truck drivers auto policy could not say that there was no insurance since this is a denial of liability due to it being an intentional act. He could sue the family or estate for causing his injuries, but not the insurance company.
The issue on whether the driver was trying to committ suicide only applies to prove this was an intentional act and specifically denied under the insurance coverage. Go read your auto policy. All insurance is clear that it only covers accidents which by definition are not intentional.
Most insurance companies have an exclusions for damages caused by acts of war and terrorism. So that is right . You have to get special insurance for acts of terrorism since the catastrophic risk is too high. Since the probablities that a single individual would have property damaged from an act of terrorism is so low, most people would not opt for such an expensive coverage. Companies may do so for premises and business interruptions and that certainly would have been activated in NYC on 9/11/01
Now, since the guy did not leave a suicide note, who decided that he was indeed trying to commit suicide, thus nixing the trucker's chance of just compensation for his medical bills etc.(...which me thinks were picked up by either worker's comp and/or disability insurance anyways)!
Me thinks Progressive is just washing this guy out on technicalities. Keep in mind this company next time you're looking for car insurance!
No, the driver being drunk does not imply they are deliberatly intending to hit a car or have an accident . Most drunks would try to avoid that. So if a drunk driver hit your car he would be liable as long as his driving was the actual negligent act and caused the accident. If you make a left in front of a driver that is drunk then his drunkeness has nothing to do with the cause of the accident.
Wrong Markomalley .The collision portion of the policy covers damages to the policyholders car regardless of who was at fault. But collision covers the car not medical damages to the driver. The truck driver attemped to get the suicide drivers insurance company pay for his loss wages and medical and pain and suffering. They defended that the company is not liable when the loss occured due to a deliberate act. Again read your policy. The contract is there to be read.
Your read the state statute requiring insurance not the actural insurance contract which states what they agree to cover.
Read your policy. Most policies are the same.
Yes, but don't be impressed - it's only a beta version.
Freepers, the truck driver usually can get an insurance policy that covers his medical injuries while driving his truck. The facts as reported indicated this may have been a company vehicle and then there was no coverage available to the truck driver. Then the workman compensation comes into play. If he was on company business his injuries and loss wages are covered under workmans compensation. This applies if was legally employed. The fact that he was fired the next day for failure to report to work may because he was 1) had a record of failing to come to work, 2) making up stories about coming to work, 3) illegal employee, 4) a realy crappy company he is working for.
If the driver had health insurance that would cover his injuries. He may have had these covered and tried to double dip which is allowed in some states.
The remarkable thing is that Progressive insurance managed to convince the judge and jury that this was deliberate act versus an accidental act which would have been covered, There must have been substantial evidence since the presumption is that this would have been accidental.
Under insured or uninsured coverage does not provide coverage when liablity is denied. That is because there was insurance just the liabity of the insurance company was denied by the jury.
The truck driver was insured by the carrier's blanket policy insurance he was working for.
The carrier(employer) is the one who should try to extract some damage pay in his behalf if they want to. He has no jurisdiction whatsoever to force them to do so.
My brother in law is a truck driver and he has his own extra insurance just in case a scenario like this will take place.
It does indeed. This guy must have had the worlds worst lawyer.
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.