Md. Court Denies Drunk Lawnmower Benefits

August 16, 2004

  • August 16, 2004 at 11:20 am
    InsuranceChick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It’s nice to see people in our business (and the law) using their heads for a change. How many stupid claims similar to this have been paid out thru the years? Stupidity should NOT be rewarded!!

  • August 16, 2004 at 11:32 am
    Mary says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I couldn’t agree more. We need more judgements like this. Insurance was never intended to pay for everything – especially stupid accidents!!!

  • August 17, 2004 at 11:56 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is interesting that we condemn stupidity, yet it is mostly stupid accidents which insurance pays for. Think of all the dumb things which happen daily which are legitimate insurance claims. In Canada, where the intoxication level is .08, this guy would not have been legally drunk (close to it, granted) but could have had 3 beer in an hour before mowing his lawn. In that case, I believe the insurer would have had to pay. It’s not the degree of stupidity but the level of intoxication we should be guided by. The court acted properly in denying the action, but because of intoxication not stupidity.

  • August 20, 2004 at 9:47 am
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If someone pays for insurance and has an ACCIDENT then that insurance company should pay for the claim.
    I can see if a person intentionally causes injury to deny a claim, but this was an ACCIDENT.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

*