Timeline for Can an auto policy cover their insured when they intentionally ram someone else’s vehicle?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 25, 2023 at 19:15 | comment | added | Joshua | In this particular case the analysis is kind of right. Either no insurance covers it, or every insurance covers it because the state insurance law requires everybody to have it. So it boils down to what coverage the state financial liability law requires to exist. | |
| Feb 2, 2022 at 1:48 | comment | added | kisspuska | It is by the operation of law if insurer A takes notice of malice in Bob’s injuring of Alice’s vehicle. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 21:04 | comment | added | ohwilleke | "the refusal of Bob's insurer to assume liability does not affect whether Alice can claim on her insurance." Not true for UIM coverage. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 5:24 | comment | added | kisspuska | Also, one of the cases cited specifically name "willful wrong": “[A]n insurer may not indemnify against liability caused by the insured's wilful wrong (Civ. Code, § 1668; Ins. Code, § 533; see, e.g., Abbott v. Western Nat. Indem. Co. (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 302, 305 [ 331 P.2d 997])” Unlawful would be more restrictive as the law appears to stand which include potentially not unlawful, but otherwise blameworthy conduct. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 5:20 | comment | added | kisspuska | Insurers also have a legal, statutory duty because of, for e.g., Insurance Code being read into all the insurance contracts: Insurer A, and insurer B may each have a legal duty, and that is at the heart of this question not necessarily whether Alice could obtain remedial judgment on a court. This is about whether one has a statutory right, read into these contracts, to certain remedies I the above fact pattern from their insurer. Added more facts to make it nice and round. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 5:16 | comment | added | Dale M♦ | You are getting into details of how the insurance industry works which is often not directly related to the legal rights and responsibilities. Insurers make commercial decisions - sometimes to pay when they don't think they have liability, sometimes to deny when they think they do. This doesn't change the legal liability between Bob & Alice. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 5:13 | comment | added | kisspuska | Agreed, based on my research, self-defense is an exception to the exclusionary clause, and I am sure that necessity would be treated similarly. The problem with the scenario outlined in the question is insurer A once having received the denial on the grounds asserted by insurer B makes it plausible for ins. A to assert insurer B admits coverage, and by that, it excludes Alice's coverage under her policy against un- and underinsured motorists. The objective is for Alice to exercise her right under Ins. Code §§ 790-790.15 in that insurer A promptly, fairly & equitably pay under her policy. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 5:05 | history | edited | Dale M♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2467 characters in body
|
| Feb 1, 2022 at 3:14 | comment | added | kisspuska | (+1 because the answer looked a lot less correct after the changes I made after the question was submitted,) | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 1:08 | comment | added | kisspuska | Added a hypo for the issue! | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 0:46 | comment | added | kisspuska | Insurance companies are required to have an evidentiary threshold no higher than set by a “reasonably clear” standard yet they will be literally happy to dispute what they see with their own eyes. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 0:42 | comment | added | kisspuska | It’s not as regulated as it may seem, I can assure you. But, yes, it would be nuts for them to do so, but what I’m hoping to know is whether I’m there is case law on this. I could look up and past precedent prohibiting liability insurance against punitive damage awards which resonates with the question, but it is not as broad as an affirmative answer to this would need to be. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 0:36 | history | answered | Dale M♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |