Thursday, September 17, 2009
Confession and Evidence
Much like Uncle did, I need to admit that this blog now has a vested interest in a commercial enterprise. So on the issue of insurance and firearms, consider me fairly biased.
That being said, the above linked "enterprise" caught a lot of shit back in July. People seemed to think that their existing insurance would cover a self-defense situation.
Well the California Supreme Court has spoken. As goes California, so goes the nation. And for a California court to take the side of an evil insurance company is unheard of.
Here's the link. Read it and think about it:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2009/08/05/102768.htm
Given, this is not a case of the use of a firearm, but the doctrine holds.
That being said, the above linked "enterprise" caught a lot of shit back in July. People seemed to think that their existing insurance would cover a self-defense situation.
Well the California Supreme Court has spoken. As goes California, so goes the nation. And for a California court to take the side of an evil insurance company is unheard of.
Here's the link. Read it and think about it:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2009/08/05/102768.htm
Given, this is not a case of the use of a firearm, but the doctrine holds.
Comments:
<< Home
After reading the linked article, there are a couple of salient points that need to be made. Initial suit by Delgado alleged that because the insured was acting in self-defense, that the injuries were accidental. What the court specifically ruled was that it was "unreasonable" for the insured (Reid) to believe he was acting in self-defense, and as such he acted with intent to injure. That's what invalidated the coverage.
You can't interpret this decision to read that injury as a result of self-defense is accidental or not, because that's not what the court ruled.
You can't interpret this decision to read that injury as a result of self-defense is accidental or not, because that's not what the court ruled.
Yes, but that's the whole point -- one very important aspect of this coverage is the duty of the insurer to defend you so that you can prove your belief was in fact a reasonable one.
“Source: Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP - Recently, the California Supreme Court in "Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California (2009) 47 Cal.4th 302 ruled that an assertion of self defense by the insured does not convert an intentional attack into an "accident" for coverage under a liability policy.”
David, that's a fair statement. I tend to run towards the skeptical side on this, but I'm not as dead set against the policy as I was previously.
Post a Comment
<< Home
