ItsBruce
Contributor
1. I suppose I ought to make it my business to spend some quality time on Rick's site and/or take him out for drinks or dinner. The one time I talked to him on the phone, I really enjoyed it.
2. Insurance law, not garden variety personal injury, is what I primarily do. So, when I say Rhone Man was right on target, that means he was. As far as the Ferrari case, I have had to advise insurers on similar kinds of things. The case raises a few points:
a. The incident described would not fall under the liability coverage of any policy. If anything, the loss would be under the "comprehensive and collision" coverage. It would not be under the liability coverage as liability coverage does not apply to damage to property owned by or in the care, custody or control of any insured person. And, as far as the "comprehensive and collision" coverage, coverage would turn on whether the person who left the car did so with the intent or expectation of it being stolen.
b. Typically, liability insurance provides coverage for sums an insured becomes legally obligated to pay resulting from an "occurrence." Definitions of "occurrence" tend to vary a bit. However the definition generally talks about "an accident neither expected nor intended by the insured."
In the case where the two fellows were horsing around, the court ruled that since the fellow doing he throwing did not expect or injure the victim, there was an "occurrence." It explained: "The following paradigms are illustrative: During a pick-up baseball game, a batter hits the ball with the intention of sending it into deep right field for a homerun. But, because of the batter’s stance and the angle of contact with the ball, the batter sends the baseball in a trajectory that breaks a window in foul territory. The batter deliberately hit the ball and intended that it move far and fast. It cannot be said that this batter intended to cause the property damage, i.e., to hit a foul ball and break the window. This was an accident because one aspect in the causal series of events -- too much force at an inadvertent angle leading to the broken window -- was unintended by the batter, and as such was fortuitous. In the second example, an intentionally speeding driver negligently hits another car. The speeding was an intentional act; but, 'the act directly responsible for the injury -- hitting the other car -- was not intended by the driver and was fortuitous. Accordingly, the occurrence resulting in injury would be deemed an accident.' [Citation.] In these examples, the conduct resulting in harm was intended but the ultimate result was not because the actor mistakenly miscalculated the physics involved. [Citation.]"
Contrast these with the case where a woman sued a male co-worker for sexually assaulting her in the workplace. In seeking coverage from his liability insurer, the man asserted that he misinterpreted the woman's statements and actions as being a "come-on." Thus, he argued there was an "occurrence" because he had not expected or intended to harm the woman. In rejecting this, the court reasoned that the acts the man performed were exactly the ones he expected and intended to do, and the result he accomplished in doing them were exactly the results he expected and intended to accomplish. His only problem was that they were all unwelcome.
I am not willing to opine on taking an OW student to 200 feet on air is or is not an "occurrence." I'd need to know a lot more about the incident.
2. Insurance law, not garden variety personal injury, is what I primarily do. So, when I say Rhone Man was right on target, that means he was. As far as the Ferrari case, I have had to advise insurers on similar kinds of things. The case raises a few points:
a. The incident described would not fall under the liability coverage of any policy. If anything, the loss would be under the "comprehensive and collision" coverage. It would not be under the liability coverage as liability coverage does not apply to damage to property owned by or in the care, custody or control of any insured person. And, as far as the "comprehensive and collision" coverage, coverage would turn on whether the person who left the car did so with the intent or expectation of it being stolen.
b. Typically, liability insurance provides coverage for sums an insured becomes legally obligated to pay resulting from an "occurrence." Definitions of "occurrence" tend to vary a bit. However the definition generally talks about "an accident neither expected nor intended by the insured."
In the case where the two fellows were horsing around, the court ruled that since the fellow doing he throwing did not expect or injure the victim, there was an "occurrence." It explained: "The following paradigms are illustrative: During a pick-up baseball game, a batter hits the ball with the intention of sending it into deep right field for a homerun. But, because of the batter’s stance and the angle of contact with the ball, the batter sends the baseball in a trajectory that breaks a window in foul territory. The batter deliberately hit the ball and intended that it move far and fast. It cannot be said that this batter intended to cause the property damage, i.e., to hit a foul ball and break the window. This was an accident because one aspect in the causal series of events -- too much force at an inadvertent angle leading to the broken window -- was unintended by the batter, and as such was fortuitous. In the second example, an intentionally speeding driver negligently hits another car. The speeding was an intentional act; but, 'the act directly responsible for the injury -- hitting the other car -- was not intended by the driver and was fortuitous. Accordingly, the occurrence resulting in injury would be deemed an accident.' [Citation.] In these examples, the conduct resulting in harm was intended but the ultimate result was not because the actor mistakenly miscalculated the physics involved. [Citation.]"
Contrast these with the case where a woman sued a male co-worker for sexually assaulting her in the workplace. In seeking coverage from his liability insurer, the man asserted that he misinterpreted the woman's statements and actions as being a "come-on." Thus, he argued there was an "occurrence" because he had not expected or intended to harm the woman. In rejecting this, the court reasoned that the acts the man performed were exactly the ones he expected and intended to do, and the result he accomplished in doing them were exactly the results he expected and intended to accomplish. His only problem was that they were all unwelcome.
I am not willing to opine on taking an OW student to 200 feet on air is or is not an "occurrence." I'd need to know a lot more about the incident.
