Posted On: December 2, 2008, 3:04 pm CST

Posted By: KentU

Dread, I couldn't agree with you more. However, Nationwide isn't using the 'commission of a crime' as their defense. They are using the exclusionary term "intentional act" as their defense. This will probably fail when going before any supreme court. Once again, this guy's 'intention' was to escape from police, not cause an accident. Nationwide should extend their defense to include the fact that their insured was in the commission of a crime.
However, courts still hold insurance companies responsible for paying damages caused by drunk drivers even though a DWI is a felony offense. I think the court's view is that the victim/claimant should not be punished for something the drunk driver did. I would like to see the court invalid the insured's collision coverage so Nationwide doesn't have to pay the repairs of his vehicle and allow the insurance carrier to subrogate against their own insured if forced to pay under these type of situations.