how old was the defendant? thought the homeowners would give coverage regardless if it was intentional if the kid was under 13? it’s a shame the article didn’t list his age so now we really don’t know if that age clause applies
Knowing the facts always helps, but we should also understand human nature – the saying boys will be boys must have been coined by someone who recognized how raging hormones often over ride young men’s ability to think first before acting stupidly. If you’ve never done it yourself, consider yourself special.
It seems to me that insurers ought to make a clear destinction between criminal actions they intend to exclude, and which are not in the public interest to cover, as opposed to accidents and intentional acts of stupidity (of which there are so many we have a T.V. program that glamorizes them – Worlds Funniest Videos.
I’m not sure if a lawsuit will fund medical treatment etc., or if it’s just a form of punishment, but I’d think the young defendant ought to take it upon himself to try to pay any out of pocket expenses the injured man has, as well as do public education about how seemingly funny pranks can have serious unintended consequences. I was lucky my college pranks didn’t hurt anyone, or
get me thrown out of school.
I came across this article on an industry trade publication and recognize this as very instructive for folks. The fact is that the kid’s injuries are still the result of negligence and the family can still pursue a lawsuit, but not have an insurance company’s deep pockets pay for it. If you wanted coverage for things like this, I am not sure any company would write it because it would let anyone off the hook when they did something stupid, that is not something that would be deemed random or fortuitous. Deliberate acts that result in unintended harm are not insurable because they are that, deliberate. Too bad the family is not well off enough to pay for his injuries. Most times things like this happen the suit is dropped because family friends would not want to bankrupt each other. It is possible that they could win the lawsuit and request that a payment schedule be set up, but it would take a long time for an 18 year old to satisfy the judgement himself without affecting his ability to go to college or take care of a family when he got married. I feel bad that this turned out like it did but I expected the exclusion to apply at first blush and am not surprised at the result.
Well, I am never going to throw a pie in anyone’s face ever again.
Not if you are insured with ANPAC! Always read your wordings, folks.
how old was the defendant? thought the homeowners would give coverage regardless if it was intentional if the kid was under 13? it’s a shame the article didn’t list his age so now we really don’t know if that age clause applies
Hi bk, I found an article on the net that said the defendent was 18 years old at the time.
What a couple of numb-nuts.
Knowing the facts always helps, but we should also understand human nature – the saying boys will be boys must have been coined by someone who recognized how raging hormones often over ride young men’s ability to think first before acting stupidly. If you’ve never done it yourself, consider yourself special.
It seems to me that insurers ought to make a clear destinction between criminal actions they intend to exclude, and which are not in the public interest to cover, as opposed to accidents and intentional acts of stupidity (of which there are so many we have a T.V. program that glamorizes them – Worlds Funniest Videos.
I’m not sure if a lawsuit will fund medical treatment etc., or if it’s just a form of punishment, but I’d think the young defendant ought to take it upon himself to try to pay any out of pocket expenses the injured man has, as well as do public education about how seemingly funny pranks can have serious unintended consequences. I was lucky my college pranks didn’t hurt anyone, or
get me thrown out of school.
I came across this article on an industry trade publication and recognize this as very instructive for folks. The fact is that the kid’s injuries are still the result of negligence and the family can still pursue a lawsuit, but not have an insurance company’s deep pockets pay for it. If you wanted coverage for things like this, I am not sure any company would write it because it would let anyone off the hook when they did something stupid, that is not something that would be deemed random or fortuitous. Deliberate acts that result in unintended harm are not insurable because they are that, deliberate. Too bad the family is not well off enough to pay for his injuries. Most times things like this happen the suit is dropped because family friends would not want to bankrupt each other. It is possible that they could win the lawsuit and request that a payment schedule be set up, but it would take a long time for an 18 year old to satisfy the judgement himself without affecting his ability to go to college or take care of a family when he got married. I feel bad that this turned out like it did but I expected the exclusion to apply at first blush and am not surprised at the result.