East News
Viewing comments for:
Pennsylvania Court Rules Parents' Homeowners Policy Covers Shootings by Son
East News • February 23, 2006
An insurance company might have to pay $1.8 million if the lone survivor and relatives of five other victims of a shooting spree win lawsuits against the attacker's parents, the Pennsylvania ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
| Subject | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| Subrogate against the Bar Association | Bill | Feb 28, 2006, 12:36 pm |
| Court ruling against parents home policy for murders | stat guy | Feb 28, 2006, 7:23 am |
| RE: RE: Shootings | Snake-in-the-grass | Feb 28, 2006, 7:02 am |
| RE: RE: RE: Coverage A Exclusion??? | brian | Feb 27, 2006, 10:45 pm |
| RE: By this logic | An Observer | Feb 27, 2006, 3:26 pm |
| RE: Shootings | Dave from Arizona | Feb 27, 2006, 3:21 pm |
| RE: RE: Chris. Ruling against parents home policy for murder | Chris | Feb 25, 2006, 11:29 am |
| RE: Chris. Ruling against parents home policy for murders. | Othello Orson | Feb 24, 2006, 9:27 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: Court ruling against parents home policy for mur | joe in claims | Feb 24, 2006, 3:13 pm |
| RE: RE: Court ruling against parents home policy for murders | der writer!!!! | Feb 24, 2006, 11:24 am |
| RE: Court ruling against parents home policy for murders. | Chris | Feb 24, 2006, 7:08 am |
| Court ruling against parents home policy for murders. | Othello Orson | Feb 24, 2006, 3:42 am |
| RE: RE: Coverage A Exclusion??? | Chris | Feb 23, 2006, 4:46 pm |
| RE: Coverage A Exclusion??? | Brian | Feb 23, 2006, 4:35 pm |
| Coverage A Exclusion??? | CPCU Guy 2006 | Feb 23, 2006, 3:55 pm |
| RE: Shootings | Dirk | Feb 23, 2006, 3:49 pm |
| RE: Son was shot | Richard Heagle | Feb 23, 2006, 1:23 pm |
| RE: RE: Negligence | Chris | Feb 23, 2006, 1:23 pm |
| Son was shot | beenthere | Feb 23, 2006, 12:48 pm |
| RE: Negligence | LLCJ | Feb 23, 2006, 12:37 pm |
| RE: Courts | Bill K | Feb 23, 2006, 12:32 pm |
| Negligence | debbie | Feb 23, 2006, 12:28 pm |
| RE: You're not stupid! | You are not stupid | Feb 23, 2006, 12:26 pm |
| By this logic | LLCJ | Feb 23, 2006, 12:23 pm |
| Ahead of the curve | A Product Manager | Feb 23, 2006, 12:14 pm |
| You're not stupid! | Richard Heagle | Feb 23, 2006, 11:53 am |
| Shootings | Confused | Feb 23, 2006, 8:24 am |
| Back to article | ||
Subject: RE: Son was shot
However, the issue remains the extremes to which plain language is contorted against the drafter to achieve an unintented result.
Much like your case in which the shooter intended apparently to discharge a BB gun where others could be injured, yet claims " unintentional result" by hitting something he wasn't aiming to hit.
Years ago I investigated a similar case in which the shooter ( age 14) shot and killed a younger sibling ( who he intended to shoot because the youngster was "tagging along" with the older boys)and claimed the subject air rifle was defective. Ballistics disproved that contention and exonerated the product liability defendant but the tragedy remained that an eight year old was albeit "unintentionally" killed by his sibling.
I don't think any damage verdict would have fixed what was broken.