Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jury says trucker gets no payment [denied because SUV that hit him was driven by suicidal dad]
Orlando Sentinel ^ | August 16, 2006 | Rene Stutzman

Posted on 08/16/2006 3:40:41 AM PDT by Brilliant

For trucker Edward Tippie, the crash on Interstate 4 was only the beginning of his nightmare.

A sport utility vehicle, loaded with a suicidal father and his two young sons, pulled away from the shoulder into the path of his tractor-trailer. Tippie hit them broadside, killing one of the boys, age 8, and the father.

It was the final act in a two-day horror story that captivated the region in September 2003. Bryan Randall, 37, a former college-basketball standout, plotted to kill his four children. It was part of an intricate plan to get revenge on his estranged wife, who had outmaneuvered Randall in a custody dispute.

But Tippie, the man behind the wheel of the truck, sees himself as the forgotten victim. And he went to court this week seeking justice.

On Tuesday, Tippie asked a jury to make Randall's insurer, Progressive Auto Insurance Co., pay $100,000 for his medical bills and other damages. He suffered a back injury... The jury refused.

The six-member panel had just one question to decide: Was that morning rush-hour crash an accident or a deliberate act by Bryan Randall, a man intent on murder and suicide?

It concluded that Randall got exactly what he wanted. And because his auto-insurance policy doesn't pay for suicide or murder, that left Tippie with nothing.

The Tampa man walked out of the Seminole County Courthouse a bitter man.

He loaded his wife, Tania, and five of his seven children, ages 7 to 18, into the family van and headed home.

"I have all these kids," Tippie said. "I live paycheck to paycheck."

Tippie, 42, couldn't work for eight months after the crash, he said. He was fired the day after the crash for refusing to go to work.

"I lost $30,000 in back wages," he said...

(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: insurance; juries; suicide; triallawyers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last
To: Brilliant
Doesn't seem like justice to me.

Insurance is a contract.

Injustice would be making the insurer pay for something that wasn't in the contract.

You're one of those people who believe in injustice for the deepest pockets, aren't you?

41 posted on 08/16/2006 5:37:43 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rhiannon
Here, insurance covers damage, not accidents. The question of whether it's deliberate or accidental simply targets who has to pay.

Folks living in Florida obviously have it set up differently.

42 posted on 08/16/2006 5:39:25 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

bttt


43 posted on 08/16/2006 5:40:30 AM PDT by dennisw (Confucius say man who go through turnstile sideways going to Bangkok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rhiannon; Young Scholar
Insurance covers accidents, not deliberate actions.

Arizona, like most states, has mandatory liability insurance for all vehicles registered in that state. While you or I may not agree that mandatory insurance is a good idea, the law is what it is.

Since the state has mandatory insurance, it is a reasonable expectation that the other driver would have insurance, which he did. Particularly considering, at least from the truck driver's perspective, it was an accident.

While I fully agree that the insurance company has every right in the world not to pay for the insured's damages, I think that relying upon a "suicide" clause to not pay for another person's damage. And here's another little trick (from the article):

But under that same auto-insurance policy, Progressive did pay a claim made by the two surviving Randall children.

Isn't that a hoot. Progressive's lawyer said,

Progressive attorney John Morrow said Randall's policy is clear. "No insurance company insures a suicide," Morrow told jurors. "No insurance company insures a murderer."

Yet they paid the claim for the surviving kids. (Since they were passenger's in the suicide car, it would make MORE sense for them not to be covered)

44 posted on 08/16/2006 5:40:41 AM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
It concluded that Randall got exactly what he wanted. And because his auto-insurance policy doesn't pay for suicide or murder, that left Tippie with nothing.

Well this may be legal, but not justice.
I am forced by law to pay for uninsured drivers.
Not allowing the suicidal to benefit from insurance makes total sense. Not allowing insurance to cover the injuries to others is a whole other thing.

Incidentally, wasn't the trucking firm insured? The truck driver?

There seems to be a lot missing from this story.

45 posted on 08/16/2006 5:40:43 AM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
Sounds like this guy might have opted out due to his financial situation.

He was a fleet driver apparently....unless he fired himself..

46 posted on 08/16/2006 5:40:56 AM PDT by ScreamingFist (Annihilation - The result of underestimating your enemies. NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mistybella
We have no information on a lawsuit against the employer, but it's pretty clear to me he failed to properly insure his drivers and should bear liability for that if nothing else.
47 posted on 08/16/2006 5:41:16 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: poobear

"Does this mean he is entitled to unheard of compensation from the other insurance company?"

Unheard of compensation? Surely you don't think he is asking too much money. $100,000 is not alot when you consider his medical bills and 8 months of unemployment.


48 posted on 08/16/2006 5:42:10 AM PDT by imskylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Now you sir are a compassionate conservative!


49 posted on 08/16/2006 5:42:41 AM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
"Progressive is owned by a big,lefty DNC Clinton donor, Peter B. Lewis."

Correct. I canceled my motorcycle insurance with them and then changed insurance brokers when the idiots tried to use progressive for my RV insurance after I told them I did not want to fund the communist left via profits from progressive.

Any Freepers with progressive insurance should consider canceling and letting the broker know why.

50 posted on 08/16/2006 5:43:40 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (The difference between democrats and terrorists is the terrorists don't claim to support the troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: conservativehusker
You did realize that NOT ALL STATES derive revenue from the Uninsured Motorist system?

For example, I don't pay a dime for it. People who are UNINSURED pay for it.

Interesting that if you fail to pay the "tax" in Nebraska and an uninsured motorist hits you, you get nothing. I'd suggest that your system was designed by lawyers who make money off uninsured motorists and drunks.

51 posted on 08/16/2006 5:43:54 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rhiannon; Young Scholar
Oh, and one other thing. Nowhere in the news article did it discuss the truck driver's insurance coverage. Whether he was an owner-operator or operating a company-owned vehicle. Whether he had uninsured motorist coverage or whatever. The topic of the truck driver's insurance is not discussed. So, if we are to make an assumption, how about this one:

The trucker had uninsured motorist coverage, but since the other party was insured, the trucker's insurance coverage declined payment. The trucker also had collision insurance, but since the incident was evaluated as being 100% the other party's fault, the collsion insurance declined payment, saying it was the other party's responsibility.

That would be just as realistic as the assumption you're making.

52 posted on 08/16/2006 5:44:05 AM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: poobear

I think this article is badly written and not telling the whole story. This may be a "double-dipping" claim.


53 posted on 08/16/2006 5:45:56 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I would think that suicide meant the policy holder not the person who hits you.

This means progressive will say EVERYTHING was a suicide. "no seatbelt?" IT WAS A SUICIDE therefore no payout.

Progressive is the worst company when it comes to being reasonable. Of course this jury is the one responsible for being so easily manipulated.


54 posted on 08/16/2006 5:46:23 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativehusker
"People have got to take responsibility for themselves and quit blaming everyone else. "

Gee Freepers are we having brain farts this morning or what? I agree with the ruling for the insurance company but where do you get off blaming the truck driver for not taking responsibility when he DID NOTHING WRONG?

It seems he was driving for a trucking firm as the article says they fired him so one might say the trucking company should have coverage for such occurrences and certainly he and the trucking company should sue the estate of the person who caused the damage.

If I drive a company vehicle am I expected to purchase additional coverage for myself?

55 posted on 08/16/2006 5:52:07 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (The difference between democrats and terrorists is the terrorists don't claim to support the troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Once upon a time I met the guy who defends McCulloch Chain Saw ~ he'd never lost a case. His defense always rested on discovering that the injured person had NOT read the instruction book that came with the chainsaw.

Progressive must have a similar lawyer although his successful reinterpretation of liability in cases of suicide probably isn't going to last long.

After all, when the guy's SUV hit the truck he was not yet dead. 99% of the injury had been done by that time, and forces were already set in motion that would result in the trucker's unemployment.

Seems to me Progressive is liable until the instant their insured died, even if not after that time.

This Progressive defense lawyer must be a humdinger to work with when the group is splitting bills at the diner.

56 posted on 08/16/2006 5:54:58 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Make sure you have Uninsured Motoristrs coverage! It's coverage you buy that pays youl damages if the other driver doesn't.

Sometimes known as the "illegal alien driver tax".

57 posted on 08/16/2006 6:08:28 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bvw
I read the replies to your post before adding this one . . .

Be advised, if the amount of coverage is six figures or higher the insurance companies will require the intervention of the courts to force them to settle, regardless of the wording of the contract. Do not expect an insurance company to simply fulfill their contractual obligations.

You should fully expect to piss away 1/3 of the stated coverage on legal costs incurred trying to get the insurance company in question to pay up.

You think the bases are covered because you purchased uninsured motorist coverage? Think again. Insurance companies will do everything in their power to wear you down when you are at your most vulnerable. There are huge profits to be made by simply wearing you down until you give up.
58 posted on 08/16/2006 6:17:56 AM PDT by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ScreamingFist

I am not hardcore. I believe this guy deserves some compensation.
My point is that whether or not the guy is laying back waiting for an insurance payment he was an innocent victim of an accident cause by the insurers client. he deserves to be compensated and his vehicle should be repaired or replaced.

Its BS insurance companies getting away with this crap and juries letting them get away with it.


59 posted on 08/16/2006 6:24:24 AM PDT by sgtbono2002 (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BraveMan

All I'm gonna say is that since my accident a little over a year ago my back is getting worse and worse. The more serious the treatments the more I'm glad that I "lawyered-up" right away.

I only sit behind a desk most of my day and by the end of the day I'm praying to God that something at least cuts the pain in half for another decade or so. I can only imagine if this fellow has similar or worse injuries what it must feel like for him to even try to drive a truck all day.


60 posted on 08/16/2006 6:33:18 AM PDT by kx9088
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson