Replies

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.

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.