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: RE: RE: Court ruling against parents home policy for mur
I have no problem with my being able to avail myself of my insurance coverage when I am alleged to be negligent. That is what HO liability coverage is all about. That is what I am paying for. Isn't the real problem here that the court allowed the negligence lawsuit to go forward? Isn't it good coverage law but bad tort law?