So if driving while drunk is an illegal activity — and usually a deliberate one at that — why do any of the auto policies have to respond? If drivers with poor driving records can be excluded from coverage, then driving while under the influence should also be excluded from coverage.
The exclusion still stands; however, the insurer pays the policy limits for third party damages and then has to sue the driver/insured for the payment. Most states allow the insurer to exclude intentional acts for injuries the insured suffers, but states will not allow the insurer to exclude claims for any innocent third parties.
Intentional acts doesn’t apply because the courts have determined a very narrow definition of intentional acts. That is to say, a driver can intentionally drive drunk and then unintentionally cause an accident. We can assume one being a logical consequence of the other, but legally it is not considered intentional.
HUH — good question that I get when I am talking to young agents – it is because the public wants the protection. If someone would run a red light – an illegal act, but coverage would still be there. If you use your car as a weapon and intentionally injure someone or damage something, then there is an appropriate exclusion. Intention would have to be proven by the insurance company.
I believe, from what I read, that the issue was whether the driver of the vehicle had permissive use of the vehicle. If not, the vehicle would have been stolen, and coverage denied.
The only points that I can see/infer in the article are that the driver must have been known to the insured and had access to the keys and possibly been permitted to drive the insured vehicle previously thereby assumed that he had permission to drive the car.
Got 15 minutues? Must have saved 15%.
So if driving while drunk is an illegal activity — and usually a deliberate one at that — why do any of the auto policies have to respond? If drivers with poor driving records can be excluded from coverage, then driving while under the influence should also be excluded from coverage.
That will never happen as long as he majority of the lawmakers are lawyers. Same reason we haven’t touched tort reform.
The exclusion still stands; however, the insurer pays the policy limits for third party damages and then has to sue the driver/insured for the payment. Most states allow the insurer to exclude intentional acts for injuries the insured suffers, but states will not allow the insurer to exclude claims for any innocent third parties.
Intentional acts doesn’t apply because the courts have determined a very narrow definition of intentional acts. That is to say, a driver can intentionally drive drunk and then unintentionally cause an accident. We can assume one being a logical consequence of the other, but legally it is not considered intentional.
HUH — good question that I get when I am talking to young agents – it is because the public wants the protection. If someone would run a red light – an illegal act, but coverage would still be there. If you use your car as a weapon and intentionally injure someone or damage something, then there is an appropriate exclusion. Intention would have to be proven by the insurance company.
I believe, from what I read, that the issue was whether the driver of the vehicle had permissive use of the vehicle. If not, the vehicle would have been stolen, and coverage denied.
The only points that I can see/infer in the article are that the driver must have been known to the insured and had access to the keys and possibly been permitted to drive the insured vehicle previously thereby assumed that he had permission to drive the car.