Conn. Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court on Coverage for Husband’s Shooting of Wife in Bed

August 12, 2004

  • August 12, 2004 at 2:11 am
    Cindy B - Texas says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thank heavens the CT Appeals Court has some folks with some common sense! If crawling into bed with your wife & child with a LOADED SHOTGUN is not reckless, I sure as hell don’t know what is! Expecting someone else to pick up the tab for the offender’s ignorant actions is part of what is driving insurance costs through the roof. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

  • August 13, 2004 at 9:46 am
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “…neither intentional nor criminal in part because he was neither wilful nor reckless. It found the insurer was obligated to defend the husband under the policy.”

    So climbing into bed with a loaded wepon is not reckless??? I think someone should climb into bed (with a loaded shotgun) with the judge that made this comment.

    Opening up a simple book called a dictionary and reading the definition of reckless would have been a useful tool in aiding the judge’s decision.

  • August 13, 2004 at 3:23 am
    KOB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that a plea of “No LO” to the criminal charge of assault, constitutes an admission of an intentional act, for which there is no coverage. “assault” requires specific intent. “recklessness” is careless disregard, which unfortunately is covered under the policy.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

*