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

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: markomalley

Wrong Markomalley .The collision portion of the policy covers damages to the policyholders car regardless of who was at fault. But collision covers the car not medical damages to the driver. The truck driver attemped to get the suicide drivers insurance company pay for his loss wages and medical and pain and suffering. They defended that the company is not liable when the loss occured due to a deliberate act. Again read your policy. The contract is there to be read.


91 posted on 08/16/2006 8:05:07 PM PDT by Rhiannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

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