Posted On: February 23, 2006, 11:53 am CST

Posted By: Richard Heagle

The plaintiff bar and many courts believe that (for their self interest and political expedience)someone must "pay" for what appears to be outrageous criminal behavior regardless of individual responsibility.

Hence, you have cases which stretch the plain language of insuring clauses of homeowners policies such that, for example, coverage is denied to the husband child molestor but is provided to his spouse (who apparently was clueless about her husband's proclivities)for defense of the allegations. Since the acts were criminal there would be no coverage for indemnity.Nonetheless, the substantial expenses incurred were never contemplated by the underwriters for the premium.

It doesn't take much to strangle the Golden Goose when the insurance business is percieved to be the bottomless fountain from which to draw ever increasing amounts to assuage societal guilt.

Maybe life isn't fair.