Okay, so does the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania provide liability coverage for Vermont state employees, or life insurance for private policyholders? This article has more holes of logic (in my opinion) than a Louisiana screen door!
Johnson, who was standing on a crossover portion of the median, tried to dive out the way.
The driver, Eric Daley, crashed the car and then ran off and was apprehended in Pennsylvania two days later. Daley, 23, of Lebanon, N.H., later pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and several drug charges and received a 26- to 33-year sentence.
The issue that the high court ruled on Friday involves a complicated dispute between Johnson’s estate and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania over how much money the estate had a right to seek in damages for the trooper’s death.
The estate, which has received $25,000 from Daley’s liability insurer and $250,000 via the state of Vermont’s underinsured motorist’s policy, claimed it ought to have the right to tap into two “umbrella” liability policies the Pennsylvania insurer had sold to Vermont.
One of the policies has a $10 million pay-out limit and the other, a $1 million limit. Both were designed to cover instances involving bodily injury suffered by a state employee, according to court records.
“The State of Vermont has primary coverage responsibility because Trooper Johnson’s vehicle is a covered auto under the policy,” the estate contended in a court filing.
The estate sued the State of Vermont in Washington Superior Court. The insurer intervened and moved the lawsuit to federal court, where it argued the two policies should not be invoked in Johnson’s case.
I sure hope that they don’t collect a dime & have to repay attorney’s fees to the state. Very sad & unfortunate that a police officer’s life was lost, but the judge should not have allowed this to go forward.
Since workers comp should be the sole remedy for the employee against the state are we be talking about an AD&D type policy? I think this is an AIG company.
Clearly, this is a tragedy, but there is a movement afoot throughout the country to defeat the so-called “Fireman’s Rule” which has existed for a long time which says essentially that a fireman (or any similarly-situated public servant, like a policeman, who is routinely in peril as a part of their occupation) cannot bring a civil action in liability for injuries incurred during action that would be considered a routine part of the job. The plaintiffs’ bar has been successful in diluting or defeating the rule altogether in several jurisdictions, and in this most liberal state, I would expect that they would enjoy some success. Hope that a fireman or policeman is not injured in the line of duty at your house in one of these states because you are more than likely to find yourself in a liability lawsuit.
AL, you hit the key point. This is about Uninsured Motorists coverage, not about WC being the sole remedy. Each state has had various rulings about if this benefit applies to Umbrellas. Vermont now joins Oregon, Ohio and others where this is permited in spite of policy language.
Ah yes, the plaintiff’s bar…has diluted the application of the law in order to, benefit whom? I am amazed at how hard the trial lawyers pursue things like this to satify their own greed. At one time an attorney was a pillar of the community who made a decent living, and occassionally helped to find justice where it could not be found; that was the reason some worked PRO BONO…today, pro bono means, the plaintiff should sit back and let the attorney shake down the system in order to find SOMEONE to pay…”why did you rob the insurance company, sir? Well, dat’s where da money is!”
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Okay, so does the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania provide liability coverage for Vermont state employees, or life insurance for private policyholders? This article has more holes of logic (in my opinion) than a Louisiana screen door!
I did some additional research and this makes more sense now. From an August 22, 2009 article, http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090822/NEWS02/908220304/1007/RSS02
Johnson, who was standing on a crossover portion of the median, tried to dive out the way.
The driver, Eric Daley, crashed the car and then ran off and was apprehended in Pennsylvania two days later. Daley, 23, of Lebanon, N.H., later pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and several drug charges and received a 26- to 33-year sentence.
The issue that the high court ruled on Friday involves a complicated dispute between Johnson’s estate and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania over how much money the estate had a right to seek in damages for the trooper’s death.
The estate, which has received $25,000 from Daley’s liability insurer and $250,000 via the state of Vermont’s underinsured motorist’s policy, claimed it ought to have the right to tap into two “umbrella” liability policies the Pennsylvania insurer had sold to Vermont.
One of the policies has a $10 million pay-out limit and the other, a $1 million limit. Both were designed to cover instances involving bodily injury suffered by a state employee, according to court records.
“The State of Vermont has primary coverage responsibility because Trooper Johnson’s vehicle is a covered auto under the policy,” the estate contended in a court filing.
The estate sued the State of Vermont in Washington Superior Court. The insurer intervened and moved the lawsuit to federal court, where it argued the two policies should not be invoked in Johnson’s case.
I sure hope that they don’t collect a dime & have to repay attorney’s fees to the state. Very sad & unfortunate that a police officer’s life was lost, but the judge should not have allowed this to go forward.
Since workers comp should be the sole remedy for the employee against the state are we be talking about an AD&D type policy? I think this is an AIG company.
Clearly, this is a tragedy, but there is a movement afoot throughout the country to defeat the so-called “Fireman’s Rule” which has existed for a long time which says essentially that a fireman (or any similarly-situated public servant, like a policeman, who is routinely in peril as a part of their occupation) cannot bring a civil action in liability for injuries incurred during action that would be considered a routine part of the job. The plaintiffs’ bar has been successful in diluting or defeating the rule altogether in several jurisdictions, and in this most liberal state, I would expect that they would enjoy some success. Hope that a fireman or policeman is not injured in the line of duty at your house in one of these states because you are more than likely to find yourself in a liability lawsuit.
AL, you hit the key point. This is about Uninsured Motorists coverage, not about WC being the sole remedy. Each state has had various rulings about if this benefit applies to Umbrellas. Vermont now joins Oregon, Ohio and others where this is permited in spite of policy language.
Ah yes, the plaintiff’s bar…has diluted the application of the law in order to, benefit whom? I am amazed at how hard the trial lawyers pursue things like this to satify their own greed. At one time an attorney was a pillar of the community who made a decent living, and occassionally helped to find justice where it could not be found; that was the reason some worked PRO BONO…today, pro bono means, the plaintiff should sit back and let the attorney shake down the system in order to find SOMEONE to pay…”why did you rob the insurance company, sir? Well, dat’s where da money is!”