Insurance covers accidents, not deliberate actions. That is what it is all about. The truck driver should have had his own coverage that would take care of his injuries. If he didn't, he self insured himself and failed to save for the risk. Polictics has nothing to do with this. Stop trying to make this a political issue.
You might be right... But I suspect that the murder/suicide clause was not intended to deal with this situation. It was probably intended to deal with the situation where the relatives of the person who committed suicide are the ones who are suing. Obviously, you can't commit suicide so that your relatives can make a claim on the policy. But this guy was just an innocent bystander. Different situation, if you ask me.
And the murder clause obviously has nothing to do with it since neither he nor the other driver were murdered.
Unless the law is clear that he loses, I would take it up on appeal, if I were him.
Would his loss be covered by an uninsured motorist clause?
<< If he didn't, he self insured himself and failed to save for the risk. >>
I agree with self-responsibility, but it is difficult to protect yourself over and above HIGH insurance costs that are mandatory. I don't know why the trucker didn't go after his own insurance company instead, because clearly the other driver's insurance is not responsible for deliberate actions as you mention.
A different wrinkle on this: Does this also mean your own insurance company is not liable when you are the 'recipient' of a terrorist act?
Folks living in Florida obviously have it set up differently.
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)
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.