Sensible ruling. If this loss occurred in CA there is a lot of case law surrounding WC and cab companies. Since this guy was an indepenent contractor and not an employee of the cab company, there is no WC so this bascially becomes an auto issue only. I do not see this loss as an accident and I do not see the assailant as the operator of the vehicle nor the vehicle being uninsured. Sounds like a greedy family to me.
Yea, the family should sue the actual person committing the crime. I guess they didn’t want the gun because that’s probably all he owned. Sad world wasting insurance company’s money to defend a lawsuit that shouldn’t even have gone to court. The only good outcome is the plantiff’s lawyer got nothin except expenses and wasted time when they could have had a legitimate lawsuit. HA HA
Sad story and sad case! However, the taxi driver could have bought life insurance as well for his own protection. The wasted time and money spent to defend the case is unavoidable. Oh well, it comes with the territory to defend cases that lack merit. The outcome is that a carjacker was not a permissive operator and I agree. I do feel bad for the family and have sympathy for their loss. I don’t think they are greety, but the future income from the driver is gone. The attorney is not too clever to challenge an issue that was obvious. The attorney took a chance. We should thank the attorney for taking his sweet time to clarify and set precedent case law. Now we know and things are more clear! Life insurance agents now can sell life insurance policies to taxi drivers and use this story as an example. See there is a positive side of this case. Too bad someone had to die.
I guess car-jackings are “accidents” as this did not appear to be a factor in the decision. “sustained by the insured caused by acident”
It’s a work comp issue, not an auto claim.
I dont think this is a comp issue, article states “as and independant contractor”. Would be auto, would it not?
Sensible ruling. If this loss occurred in CA there is a lot of case law surrounding WC and cab companies. Since this guy was an indepenent contractor and not an employee of the cab company, there is no WC so this bascially becomes an auto issue only. I do not see this loss as an accident and I do not see the assailant as the operator of the vehicle nor the vehicle being uninsured. Sounds like a greedy family to me.
Yea, the family should sue the actual person committing the crime. I guess they didn’t want the gun because that’s probably all he owned. Sad world wasting insurance company’s money to defend a lawsuit that shouldn’t even have gone to court. The only good outcome is the plantiff’s lawyer got nothin except expenses and wasted time when they could have had a legitimate lawsuit. HA HA
Sad story and sad case! However, the taxi driver could have bought life insurance as well for his own protection. The wasted time and money spent to defend the case is unavoidable. Oh well, it comes with the territory to defend cases that lack merit. The outcome is that a carjacker was not a permissive operator and I agree. I do feel bad for the family and have sympathy for their loss. I don’t think they are greety, but the future income from the driver is gone. The attorney is not too clever to challenge an issue that was obvious. The attorney took a chance. We should thank the attorney for taking his sweet time to clarify and set precedent case law. Now we know and things are more clear! Life insurance agents now can sell life insurance policies to taxi drivers and use this story as an example. See there is a positive side of this case. Too bad someone had to die.