“Maine’s highest court says the estate of a man killed in a Portland punching incident isn’t entitled to money from the puncher’s family’s insurance policy.”
it would’ve been nice to read WHY that decision was rendered
The court found that the claim was precluded by an intentional loss exclusion because Googins intentionally assaulted Benson. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err in determining that Googins’s conduct was within the scope of the intentional loss exclusion.
“Maine’s highest court says the estate of a man killed in a Portland punching incident isn’t entitled to money from the puncher’s family’s insurance policy.”
it would’ve been nice to read WHY that decision was rendered
http://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/2015/2015-me-155.html
The court found that the claim was precluded by an intentional loss exclusion because Googins intentionally assaulted Benson. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err in determining that Googins’s conduct was within the scope of the intentional loss exclusion.
Dear plymn thanks for supplying the missing information. This was otherwise poor and useless reporting.