- Thread starter
- #21
Does your brother have any assets? H e could just file for bankrupcy, with them as a creditor. Washes it away.
Since the lawsuit is stemming from an intentional act, bankruptcy is not an option (it is not dischargeable).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Does your brother have any assets? H e could just file for bankrupcy, with them as a creditor. Washes it away.
1. file a claim immediately
2. let the insurance company decide what is covered
3. negligence and intentional acts are two separate and very different things and the line is blurred in many jurisdictions. I would suspect the plaintiff attorney plead both. Negligence hooks the homeowners policy.
good luck.
Me again. Just out of curiosity: Are you an agent or an attorney? Each of your posts seems to involve some variation of "take them to court" or "hook the carrier".you again?
it may very well be intentional - but a negligence count hooks the policy (defense) thus the reason to contact your HO carrier.
If person A punches person B and person B falls and hits head on concrete. Many jurisdictions ruled the injuries striking the concrete is not intentional - the punch intentional yes but person A didn't foresee the unintended consequences - thus the negligence angle.
Are you a Public Adjuster? That's the only profession other than attorney that I can think of off hand that recommends litigation against anyone who comes near.Neither but you can keep guessing. Each of your posts seems to suggest - no coverage - no liability - take your ball and go home. Very few jurisdictions or fact patterns are that clear cut but you can continue to assume away.
Google intentional act exceptions - 2.9MIL hits - there's some light Sunday reading for you. Maybe you'll learn something to include in your next report. Just think if you get the intentional fire condo fatality - you will be all set - you'll be superman you can adjust the property, the liability and possibly handle the subrogation.
Extent of Intended Harm Not Determinative
If , however, an insurer succeeds in showing an act was intended to cause the resulting harm, it is not necessary to prove that the insured expected to cause the extent of harm that ultimately occurred. The "resulting harm" concerns the type of harm inflicted--whether personal injury or property damage--and not the extent of the harm actually sustained. City of Newton v. Krasignor, 404 Mass. 682 (1989).
Nah, the point was that saying that all my posts suggest the denial of a claim was a bit pre-mature, considering you have not been around here long enough to make that judgement based on more than a thread or two.Yes in the internet age - post count = knowledge.
Sorry, confused it with the other ones. Filing a claim is indeed the only way to determine if the carrier will cover it. I seriously doubt the carrier will confuse negligence with intent, but there is only one way to find out.My suggestion - notify the homeowners insurer - I don't think that is all that crazy of advice.
I didn't recommend litigation on this one. Just a phone call.
Every denial is written, and if the claim is denied based on specific exclusions, it is not risky at all. Why bother to defend under an RoR? The insured admitted and has been convicted of the attack, which makes the intent issue pretty clear.Others in no particular order - no coverage, file bankruptcy (thats always a cheap way to go /sarcasm), hope they amend the complaint to add the parents, etc. The phone call is probably toll free. Then if denied a written denial would be in order - very risky to deny a claim in litigation. How about if they defend under Reservation of Rights? Who pays defense? In your years of "providing objective facts" ever provided a recommendation that both pay the insured and the carrier to settle the claim?
There is. I made it easy for you to read:Liked the comment on self defense - self defense is an intentional act as well - there is no exception to the exclusion for "self defense".
I simply said that booze adds an interesting aspect to the loss. Any time someone can claim impairment, there is someone out there willing to absolve the impaired of responsibility for their actions while impaired. Never know if it will be a judge or jury.Booze? Is there a separate forum for booze related claims? Drunks are covered? Deny them on the spot!!! /sarcasm
Looks like he just disappeared, along with his posts.