Who decides he wasn't before the fact of a court trial?
If that is determinative, why have a trial?
“Who decides he wasn’t before the fact of a court trial?
If that is determinative, why have a trial?”
You don’t understand. For an insurance company to defend its insured, there FIRST must be coverage — or potential coverage — under the policy. That means the cause of action (the claim) must fall within the policy’s insuring agreement. If it doesn’t, and there’s no question it doesn’t, the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify, and will issue a coverage disclaimer. If there is potential coverage, the insurer will issue the policyholder a reservation of rights, which means the insurer will provide for a defense, but if evidence comes in that would show that coverage would not apply, then the insurer can issue a coverage disclaimer and withdraw from providing a defense.
Another thing: There was no claim or charge against the police department, which there sure as hell would have been if the guy had been acting under color of law. The guy had no real recoverable assets, but the police department did, and its insurer sure as hell did; so a claim would have been brought against them. But, none was.
My bad. I found a federal lawsuit on line (it’s a different case than this one, which I thought was the federal civil rights lawsuit, as that was what our local radio station said today; I mistakenly assumed this thread was about that, but this thread is actually about a federal Hate Crimes action).
So, there WAS a federal civil rights lawsuit filed in the USDC for the Southern District of Georgia, naming as defendants the McMichaels, Bryant, a cop, the police chief, the DA, and some John Doe officials. That lawsuit DOES allege that all three of the perps were “entrusted by local law enforcement to respond to trespasses in the area.” This lawsuit DOES allege they acted under color of law.
I’m trying to find the status of this civil rights case, and who is defending whom.