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 ...
Yeah, they don't tell you about that. I mentioned in another post that probably he got workman's comp. But workman's comp isn't very much.
Yes, but the law requires everyone to be insured in order to protect the guys you might run into. Shouldn't the law require them to protect those people whether it was an accident, or intentional? It's not purely a contractual thing. The guy he ran into did not agree to it.
Of course, if that's the law, then that's the law. But I'm not sure it really is the law. The suicide clause was obviously intended to prevent the survivors of someone who commits suicide from collecting. But was it intented to prevent someone who was injured as an innocent bystander to the suicide? I question that.
It's not justice, but the insurance policy covers accidents, not willful acts. He has a claim against the deceased's estate.
Same thing happened recently around here. Some a$$hole drove his Porsche head on into a friggin' Escort with two innocent people in it, on a two lane blacktop. They got hurt worse than him. Cripes, if you really have to do something like this, how hard would it be to find a cement truck on a major highway?
I think most policies issued these days exclude terrorism. That really is a different thing, though, because you can buy separate terrorism insurance, for an additional premium, and we've made a societal decision not to require mandatory insurance to cover that since it's so expensive to insure, and relatively unlikely.
I always thought that the suicide clause was intended to prevent someone from benefiting from their own suicide, or the suicide of a loved one, though. That's not what happened here.
This is a JURY deciding to deny coverage.
This was probably Progressive Insurance making a calculated business decision to establish case law which has no coverage for intentional torts.
This man has just been hit twice.
This way ONLY ACCICENTS are covered. If someone hits your car on purpose you have no coverage. So if someone wants to escape insurance company liabilty, they just screw you by saying they did it on purpose. (of course then criminal liablity attaches)
Legislated law doesn't have much to do with it, other than contract law. The insurance contract states what they cover and what they don't.
The suicide clause was obviously intended to prevent the survivors of someone who commits suicide from collecting.
We are not talking about life insurance, we are talking about automobile liability insurance.
The liability insurance contract excludes damages caused by the insuree during a suicide attempt.
End of story, unless you believe that contracts shouldn't mean what they say.
He assembles phony pictures and sues the professional for assault. The professional contacts the insurance company and is panicked to realized that he is not covered.
The drug addict knew this--I guess his lawyer told him before the fact. He knew the chance of a quick settlement might be greater when the defendant discovers that he's going bare.
As it turned out, the insurance company did agree to pay for the defense, and the crooked junkie and his crooked lawyer agreed to a dismissal--but only after the faked photos entered into deposition.
What could be done to the lawyer in this case? The junkie had no assets.
Well, the story doesn't actually say what the language of the contract says. You say it says "damages caused during a suicide attempt." But it might not use that language. It might use some different language that is more supportive of what I suggested. That might be how the jury interpreted it, but since these insurance policies are required to have certain coverage under the law, I would not assume that the jury's conclusion is decisive.
Afterall, why do we have laws requiring drivers to be insured at all, if not to protect innocent people who they might run into? And if that's the purpose of it, then why should it matter whether the person who caused the injury was trying to commit suicide when he did it? You've also got to interpret these policies so that they comply with the law. If the law does not allow an exclusion for suicides, and these policies are being marketed in Florida under the guise that they comply with the Florida laws, then it seems to me that a court should rule that the provision does not except suicide, even if it expressly says that it does.
I don't care for long-haul truckers. So this one's misfortune pleases me. A lot, actually.
Thinkthenpost clearly forgot one of the most important steps. It goes:
Read --> Think --> Post
"Read --> Think --> Post"
;D!
I've been guilty of this on several occasions. Feels much better when someone else is!
Except the injured man is not the one who agreed to this contract and commited sucide. He can't be held to a contract he didn't agree to.
So you are saying that insurance companies should not be allowed to abide by contracts they made with the insuree, they should be forced to abide by non-contracts they didn't make with the party injured by the insuree?
Wow! How intellectually vacant of you.
Evidently you believe that the purpose of insurance companies is to give money away to people you feel sorry for.
And I bet you're the first to bitch most and loudest when your insurance rates go up.
The suicidee is the one responsible for the accident. He is the one with the liability. An insurance company agrees, for a fee, to assume a portion of the insuree's liability under specified circumstances. This event fell outside of the specified circumstances.
End of story. Insurance companies aren't Santa Claus.
Aren't you a little old to believe in Santa Claus anyway?
A judge and jury disagreed with you.
They saw the actual language. You're just spouting brain-farts.
We know the jury did, but I don't think that the judge necessarily did. Afterall, he let it go to the jury, and the interpretation of the contract is a legal issue. In addition, the case may very well not be over. I would not be too surprised if the plaintiff asks the court for a JNOV, and/or appeals. Legal issues are generally appealable.
So where is it that you think insurance money comes from?
The Florida Statute requires every owner of a vehicle to provide "proof of financial responsibility", which is defined as follows in subsection 324.021, Fla. Stat:
"(7) Proof of financial responsibility.--That proof of ability to respond in damages for liability on account of crashes arising out of the use of a motor vehicle:
(a) In the amount of $10,000 because of bodily injury to, or death of, one person in any one crash;
(b) Subject to such limits for one person, in the amount of $20,000 because of bodily injury to, or death of, two or more persons in any one crash;
(c) In the amount of $10,000 because of injury to, or destruction of, property of others in any one crash; and
(d) With respect to commercial motor vehicles and nonpublic sector buses, in the amounts specified in ss. 627.7415 and 627.742, respectively."
I don't see where it says that the required coverage doesn't apply to injuries suffered by third parties if the crash is the result of a suicide attempt by the insured.
So why is Progressive selling auto insurance in Fla. that contains such an exclusion? The only argument that I can see in their favor is that the guy was suing for more than the required coverage amounts. Maybe they could argue that their exclusion at least had applicability for damages in excess of $10,000.
But if I'm the judge, I at least hold that they are required to provide coverage to the extent that the law mandates coverage. If they did not want to provide that coverage, then they should not have been selling policies in Fla. under the pretext that they complied with the Fla. insurance requirements.
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.