If you read the 2 other articles that are linked to this one it’s seems pretty clear that the Wilcox’s did not have insurance on their dump truck. Mr Wilcox tried calling Arcadia hours after the crash to reinstate his policy. It’s absurd that the CT Supreme Court would reinstate this lawsuit.
I hear you Lucy. Courts go out of their way to find the deep pockets even when they obviously aren’t there. Sounds like the truck owners should be charged with fraud given they tried to get coverage after the wreck. Hope the carrier fights them every step of the way.
I do not know this case or the laws in this state but it may be possible that the the plaintiff attorney has taken an assignment of the defendant’s right to sue for coverage. If so, it is not actually the insured suing for coverage but the plaintiff on behalf of the insured in an effort to seek assets. I suspect the plaintiff’s attorney must (and wants to) pursue this to avoid malpractice and of course to get paid for services rendered.
First, you can’t mix emotion with law. The law must be applied neutrally and based on facts. And yes I know that doesn’t always happen.
Second, if you do some research you’ll find a number of articles from news sources that state the insureds received documentation from the carrier and the agent that the coverage was in effect. I’m not saying it’s true but it appears to me that the court is allowing the case to go through because of inconsistencies between the insurer, the agent and the insureds. Sounds plausible to me. I’ve seen quite a few cases where policies were erroneously canceled and refunds issued even though the insured didn’t request it, or actually want it (meaning there was a miscommunication. Of course, have also seen cases where insureds wanted to reinstate coverage once they knew something happened and wanted it covered. None of the sources reporting on this story have provided all the facts, mostly because all the facts haven’t been made available.
well, i think what they want to prove, will not be proven – because they had resolved that the insurance was made fraudelent. so if the insurance was not valid, what more money are they going to get? the only thing they can do, is a suit against the business. so to me, it’s more money being spent that should not be spent because there will be no more money to give.
FYI – an earlier IJ article stated the fatal accident was on 7/29/05 and the Insured received a cancellation refund of $40,000 in January 2005 – six months before the crash. Doesn’t sound like miscommuication to me. Sounds like FRAUD.
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.
http://www.wfsb.com/slideshow/wilcox/9563514/detail.html
What a terrible shame!
http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/crime/news_wtnh_mother_son_to_be_sentenced_for_fraud_200906281545
If you read the 2 other articles that are linked to this one it’s seems pretty clear that the Wilcox’s did not have insurance on their dump truck. Mr Wilcox tried calling Arcadia hours after the crash to reinstate his policy. It’s absurd that the CT Supreme Court would reinstate this lawsuit.
I hear you Lucy. Courts go out of their way to find the deep pockets even when they obviously aren’t there. Sounds like the truck owners should be charged with fraud given they tried to get coverage after the wreck. Hope the carrier fights them every step of the way.
Wasn’t this the case where the owner’s wife was actually charged with fraud?
Yes indeed it is. What a waste of tax payer dollars.
I do not know this case or the laws in this state but it may be possible that the the plaintiff attorney has taken an assignment of the defendant’s right to sue for coverage. If so, it is not actually the insured suing for coverage but the plaintiff on behalf of the insured in an effort to seek assets. I suspect the plaintiff’s attorney must (and wants to) pursue this to avoid malpractice and of course to get paid for services rendered.
First, you can’t mix emotion with law. The law must be applied neutrally and based on facts. And yes I know that doesn’t always happen.
Second, if you do some research you’ll find a number of articles from news sources that state the insureds received documentation from the carrier and the agent that the coverage was in effect. I’m not saying it’s true but it appears to me that the court is allowing the case to go through because of inconsistencies between the insurer, the agent and the insureds. Sounds plausible to me. I’ve seen quite a few cases where policies were erroneously canceled and refunds issued even though the insured didn’t request it, or actually want it (meaning there was a miscommunication. Of course, have also seen cases where insureds wanted to reinstate coverage once they knew something happened and wanted it covered. None of the sources reporting on this story have provided all the facts, mostly because all the facts haven’t been made available.
well, i think what they want to prove, will not be proven – because they had resolved that the insurance was made fraudelent. so if the insurance was not valid, what more money are they going to get? the only thing they can do, is a suit against the business. so to me, it’s more money being spent that should not be spent because there will be no more money to give.
FYI – an earlier IJ article stated the fatal accident was on 7/29/05 and the Insured received a cancellation refund of $40,000 in January 2005 – six months before the crash. Doesn’t sound like miscommuication to me. Sounds like FRAUD.