Utah Man Accused of Killing Officer Sues Insurer

January 15, 2013

  • January 15, 2013 at 12:47 pm
    Always Amazed says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 23
    Thumb down 4

    “The shootout is considered an intentional act, Farmers spokesman Mark Toohey said, and claims resulting from such acts are not covered by most homeowners’ insurance policies. Criminal acts can be considered intentional acts, Toohey added.” And this is one of the reasons why I am always amazed.

  • January 15, 2013 at 1:22 pm
    Realist says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 23
    Thumb down 0

    It will be interesting to follow that case……………hope IJ does.

  • January 15, 2013 at 1:28 pm
    Shootout says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 29
    Thumb down 2

    “And this is one of the reasons why I am always amazed.”
    What amazes me is the propensity to try to sue, even when YOU have initiated a shootout with local police, you still try to sue to collect damages… My GOD people get a clue…

    • January 16, 2013 at 3:36 pm
      Always Amazed says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 11
      Thumb down 2

      Exacty my point. Not only initiated a shootout but killed one of the officers. And now he wants to sue his insuance company! Insanity.

  • January 15, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    Razorback says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 32
    Thumb down 1

    It was an intentional act. Don’t see the problem here.

  • January 15, 2013 at 1:46 pm
    Darren says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 18
    Thumb down 6

    One could argue that the intent was to put holes in people, not the house.

  • January 15, 2013 at 1:51 pm
    San Antonio Rose says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 47
    Thumb down 1

    I’m surprised that they even paid for the damage to the building from the bullets and forcible entry!

    • January 16, 2013 at 11:50 am
      Don't Call Me Shirley says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 10
      Thumb down 3

      It’s like: “I have some damage to my property that needs to be taken care of. Oh, and by the way, I killed a guy.”

      • January 16, 2013 at 12:12 pm
        Jeff says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 0

        I remember a young lady called me to report a glass loss on her car. When I asked her how it happened she told me a pedestrian went through it.

  • January 15, 2013 at 2:12 pm
    sips says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 15
    Thumb down 5

    I’ll bet the scumbag’s cell at Weber County jail is better than the craphoole he used to live in. Cop killer??? Adios the SOB!

  • January 15, 2013 at 2:31 pm
    incognito says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 31
    Thumb down 4

    And we wonder why are system is so upside down! An A Hole kills a police officer during a shooting he none the less created and he wants to be compensated! Amazing is all I can say. Hopefully if and when they sell his house the monies will go to the police officers family. When will people ever learn to take responsibility for their own actions! Good riddance to him, let his ass Rot in jail where he belongs.

    • January 15, 2013 at 5:24 pm
      sb says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 24
      Thumb down 29

      The police had no business raiding his home in the first place.

      • January 15, 2013 at 7:15 pm
        SteveB says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 4

        Say, what?!?! Are you one of those weirdies that thinks the police should mine their own business!

      • January 16, 2013 at 3:45 pm
        companyman says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 6

        I think you need to reverse your initials…

  • January 15, 2013 at 3:11 pm
    Insurance Sam says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 28
    Thumb down 0

    why doesn’t the standard HO exclusion for “loss caused by the confiscation, destruction, or seizure of property covered un Coverage A, B, or C by order of civil authority” apply? I have seen that applied several times to exclude this exact scenario.

    • January 15, 2013 at 4:03 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 10
      Thumb down 0

      …because the damaged not covered was caused by the insured’s intentional act of firing bullets into a person. The article makes it seem like the carrier already covered the damage “caused by the confiscation, destruction or seizure of property”, but is refusing to cover the damage caused by their policyholder killing a dude in the process of the confiscation/destruction/seizure

      • January 16, 2013 at 10:12 am
        insurance mom says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 1

        yes, if they paid anything at all, they were probably taking a very liberal interpretation. I hope the company doesn’t get roped into paying even more because of having done so. It’s been a long time – is the right term waiver and estoppel?

  • January 16, 2013 at 10:08 am
    jw says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 3

    I’m just surprised he had insurance.

    • January 16, 2013 at 11:48 am
      Don't Call Me Shirley says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 20
      Thumb down 4

      Unfortunately, he forgot to add the Drug Dealer’s Endorsement.

  • January 16, 2013 at 11:48 am
    Buster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 2

    Looks like LoopHole Mutual is taking a shakey coverage position here.

  • January 16, 2013 at 1:39 pm
    FFA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 2

    Just like Farmers to pay for somethign like this after they nickle and dime down legit claims for law abiding people. Back in my captive days, I had a client open fire through his door at trick or treators. Farmers would not get off the auto as the incident had nothing to do with his car. He had no renters.
    I fear that they have opend the check book and will be forced to do so again by our mixed up court system.

  • January 16, 2013 at 4:34 pm
    jim hildebrand says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 4

    They need to make a “bombing run” to the eastern Atlantic and use him as a bomb. I believe mysterious disappearance is excluded, right?

  • January 18, 2013 at 2:50 pm
    MKM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 4

    What about the fact that the police entered his home doing a drug raid? The guy was breaking the law which makes him responsible. What about the lives he has damaged with his drug business? Insurance should not have paid any of the damages. Let’s give the country back to hard working law-abiding citizens.

  • January 22, 2013 at 9:38 am
    Doug Kimm says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Also, damage to personal property by bullets or projectiles is not a named peril under the policy.”
    Aren’t the bullets damage caused an Explosion (an explosion is what sends the bullet forward) which is a named peril in most homeowners policies.

  • January 22, 2013 at 1:11 pm
    truth says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 3

    Shame on Farmers Ins. for paying a “dime”` This was an intentional act on the part of the insured and a comission of a felon. Farmers made a payment now they have opened the door.
    Typical move by a jail-bird to cost the public more via litigation. Maybe Emily Swenson would like to reimburse the city the cost of this frivolous law suit! She could always turn in her license to practice law in payment.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features