[DiogenesLamp]

With all due respect, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I am always willing to learn. I am simply not seeing how your point about insurance determines guilt or innocence.

Courts sometimes deliberate for days to determine guilt or innocence, and from what I can tell, they often get it wrong.

Should an insurance company's decision be regarded as more conclusive than that of a trial?

I don't grasp this line of argument.

[ought-six]

“I am always willing to learn. I am simply not seeing how your point about insurance determines guilt or innocence.”

An insurer has two primary duties: to defend and to indemnify. The duty to defend is superior to the duty to indemnify. Insurance doesn’t determine fault, the trier of fact (the jury; or, if a bench trial, the judge) does.