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: Publius6961

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.


61 posted on 08/16/2006 6:33:40 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.


62 posted on 08/16/2006 6:39:11 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

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?


63 posted on 08/16/2006 6:39:38 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cantweall

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.


64 posted on 08/16/2006 6:50:32 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
You know, that was the politest slap down I have seen around here in a long time..LOL!!!!

But you are right..I guess I wrote that statement "off the cuff"..It does seem to me that this fellow had other avenues available and the courts ruled this one shut. However the knee jerk attitude of some is to blame the big bad insurance company for the problem.
I deal with a lot of people who spend more time planning their vacations then preparing for their financial security. Then when something bad happens to them they lash out.

A person thinks they spend a fortune on premium payments (around here 6 months premium is about the MONTHLY payment on a new car) but if they are in an accident the company is on the hook not only for a new $30,000 car for them but a new one for the other driver and up to the liability limits to anyone they hurt. (Could be $100,000 per person sometimes a lot more.)

Now some folks will say thats fine but I drive a beater and have liability only...so take that premium amount they pay and figure how long it would take to save up the amount of liability insurance they have. The premium is still fractions of a penny of the expected payout if they find themselves liable for damages.

Policies are written VERY precisely because thats the only way to PREDICT with any certainty how much in claims the company will pay out over the next year...a company can't tell you WHO will be in an accident but they can tell you pretty close to how many accidents there will be. They can't predict who's house will burn down this year but they can tell you how many will.. and a persons responsibility and past claims are all factored in.

MY advise to anyone is schedule a review of your financial foundation. The worst time to find a hole is at the time you need the coverage. And be clear as to your "Self Insurance limit" on ALL policies. Some cannot afford all the coverage they need but usually the ones who can least afford it have the most to loose. Raise deductibles before you lower liability limits...which would you prefer to be out an additional $250 or the $50,000 liability amount you dropped to save $50? .."If you can't afford to fix the leaky roof where will you comeup for the money to fix the additional damage the water does? /END RANT
65 posted on 08/16/2006 6:55:48 AM PDT by conservativehusker (GO BIG RED!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

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)


66 posted on 08/16/2006 7:00:42 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222
Right -- He should have been more like this guy


67 posted on 08/16/2006 7:13:06 AM PDT by RetiredSWO ((You have to have nuts to be squirrelly))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Correct response.
68 posted on 08/16/2006 7:15:48 AM PDT by MrEdd (More cheep than a flock of baby chickens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Of course, if that's the law, then that's the law. But I'm not sure it really is the law.

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.

69 posted on 08/16/2006 7:49:43 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 62 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
Actually, I am familiar with an attempted shakedown concerning intentional torts--a drug addict walks into a professional's place of business, and then runs out of the place of business yelling about how he's been beat up, assaulted.

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.

70 posted on 08/16/2006 8:41:23 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.


71 posted on 08/16/2006 9:15:18 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I don't care for long-haul truckers. So this one's misfortune pleases me. A lot, actually.


72 posted on 08/16/2006 9:32:49 AM PDT by neutrino (Globalization is the economic treason that dare not speak its name.(173))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: poobear; thinkthenpost

Thinkthenpost clearly forgot one of the most important steps. It goes:

Read --> Think --> Post


73 posted on 08/16/2006 10:43:25 AM PDT by Young Scholar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Young Scholar

"Read --> Think --> Post"

;D!

I've been guilty of this on several occasions. Feels much better when someone else is!


74 posted on 08/16/2006 10:53:34 AM PDT by poobear (Political Left, continually accusing their foes of what THEY themselves do every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
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.

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.

75 posted on 08/16/2006 12:16:37 PM PDT by mistybella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: mistybella
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?

76 posted on 08/16/2006 12:53:08 PM 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 75 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
It might use some different language that is more supportive of what I suggested.

A judge and jury disagreed with you.

They saw the actual language. You're just spouting brain-farts.

77 posted on 08/16/2006 12:55:09 PM 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 71 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.


78 posted on 08/16/2006 1:41:53 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

So where is it that you think insurance money comes from?


79 posted on 08/16/2006 2:17:02 PM 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 78 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.


80 posted on 08/16/2006 2:20:58 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | 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