Posted On: February 25, 2006, 11:29 am CST

Posted By: Chris

Othello,

Are we reading the same article? The ruling reported on was from the Court of Appeals, and it was not on the merits of the claim, it was on the coverage issue.

The court ruled that the parents' exposure was covered, which I agree with based upon the wording of the policy.

The court also ruled that there were six occurrences, so that the $300K policy limit applies to each murder, which I disagree with both because of the way the policy is worded, and because that ruling seems to be disingenuous with the appellate court's reasoning why there is coverage to begin with. I believe that my earlier posting states this.

The appellate court did not say that the cases were worth the $300K each in regard to the parents' liability, nor has a jury. As far as I can tell, the trial court hasn't yet decided that. Note that the article states that the appeal had stayed resolution of the claims.

One other issue, that no one seems to be considering, is that the suit against the carrier for coverage was probably not only by the plaintiffs in the underlying case, but the parents as well. Note that the trial court did not originally dismiss the case against the parents, only the carrier for coverage. That means that the parents were left uninsured for the suit brought by the plaintiffs. Of course the parents are going to sue to get coverage.

If you want to be angry that there is coverage, first be angry that the trial court hasn't dismissed the underlying claim against the parents.