Shame on State Farm for not having paid their deceased insured’s claim from 2002 voluntarily and long ago! The poor man was run down on a sidewalk by a crazed driver. Of course his PIP, SUM and death limits should have been applied! The Court made the right ruling – should have been resolved long ago and State Farm should be penalized by the Court, in my opinion.
I respectfully disagree with the first comment. Even though it was a tragic “accident” from the perspective of the pedestrian, the auto policy form clearly excludes intentional acts of the insured. The auto insurance carrier should not have to pay for loss that is excluded by the policy.
Re-reading the article I discovered the estate of the dead pededstrian was trying to get the pedestrian’s policy to pay. In that case, I totally agree that State Farm should pay up. The intentional act exclusion is on the part of the Insured, so the driver’s policy would exclude this, but the victim’s policy should pay.
A reasonable conclusion as the language generally says “from the standpoint of the insured.” Similar to when you cover an employer for an unexpected and unintended intentional act committed by an employee. Makes one wonder if this yet another example of a carrier failing to invest in training and education of its staff such that they make bad coverage calls. The insured probably would have won this case in the vast majority of jurisdictions.
By the way, don’t miss the point here. The other comments discuss the intentional act exclusion. The case here surrounded the gatekeeper of the insuring agreement; “Accident” in an auto policy (similar to “occurrence” in CGL, BOP.) If you don’t have an “accident” you don’t make it past the insuring agreement and never get to the exclusions, conditions and so on. This is a common mistake people make. Those who do construction defect are neck deep in this issue every day, and have to navigate the varying approaches the states have on the subject. (Some like Texas call faulty work an “occurrence” where as others don’t, for example. The sub exception under L never comes into play if you don’t have an “occurrence”.)
Shame on State Farm for not having paid their deceased insured’s claim from 2002 voluntarily and long ago! The poor man was run down on a sidewalk by a crazed driver. Of course his PIP, SUM and death limits should have been applied! The Court made the right ruling – should have been resolved long ago and State Farm should be penalized by the Court, in my opinion.
I respectfully disagree with the first comment. Even though it was a tragic “accident” from the perspective of the pedestrian, the auto policy form clearly excludes intentional acts of the insured. The auto insurance carrier should not have to pay for loss that is excluded by the policy.
Re-reading the article I discovered the estate of the dead pededstrian was trying to get the pedestrian’s policy to pay. In that case, I totally agree that State Farm should pay up. The intentional act exclusion is on the part of the Insured, so the driver’s policy would exclude this, but the victim’s policy should pay.
OK Lauren – Now I’ll let you keep your CIC & ARM designations!
This was a fair and just ruling. it finally puts a box around the intentional damage exclusion.
A reasonable conclusion as the language generally says “from the standpoint of the insured.” Similar to when you cover an employer for an unexpected and unintended intentional act committed by an employee. Makes one wonder if this yet another example of a carrier failing to invest in training and education of its staff such that they make bad coverage calls. The insured probably would have won this case in the vast majority of jurisdictions.
By the way, don’t miss the point here. The other comments discuss the intentional act exclusion. The case here surrounded the gatekeeper of the insuring agreement; “Accident” in an auto policy (similar to “occurrence” in CGL, BOP.) If you don’t have an “accident” you don’t make it past the insuring agreement and never get to the exclusions, conditions and so on. This is a common mistake people make. Those who do construction defect are neck deep in this issue every day, and have to navigate the varying approaches the states have on the subject. (Some like Texas call faulty work an “occurrence” where as others don’t, for example. The sub exception under L never comes into play if you don’t have an “occurrence”.)