the a-hole who threw the punch should be forced to sell his house for the injuries he caused..when is this crap going to stop .. 5 yrs , another travesty
The Courts got it right. It was an easy case that could have been decided by lunch time.
The sad thing is that a wuss of a hockey player (plaintiff) forgot the rules, man. What happens on the ice, stays on the ice! That includes blood, teeth, and jock straps, eh?!!
Maybe the plaintiff needs to come to the East and see how we handle cross-checks, eh!
Not saying whether I think this is valid or not, but a lot of times these suits linger in court for the following reason:
The ISO CGL form reads- This insurance does not apple to: a) Expected or Intended Injury \”Bodily injury\” or \”property damage\” expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.
I know this is a commercial form, but I would assume a personal coverage form would have the same or a very similar exclusion.
Anyway, the point is the wording \”expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.\” An argument that stands up surprisingly often is, \”I intended to punch him. I didn\’t expect or intend that the punch would result in bodily injury.\” \”I intended to trip him. I didn\’t expect that the trip would result in a broken nose.\” \”I intended to keep a colony of termites as pets. I didn\’t expect that they would escape and damage my neighbors property.\” In other words, from the standpoint of the insured, they did not think that their actions would result in BI or PD.
Expected/intended injury is excluded…unless reasonable force being used to defend persons/property. So, the real question is…was his protective force reasonable?
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.
the a-hole who threw the punch should be forced to sell his house for the injuries he caused..when is this crap going to stop .. 5 yrs , another travesty
The court didn\’t get it wrong. This was a civil, not criminal, action. This court\’s job was to interpreted the COVERAGE, not the assault.
The Courts got it right. It was an easy case that could have been decided by lunch time.
The sad thing is that a wuss of a hockey player (plaintiff) forgot the rules, man. What happens on the ice, stays on the ice! That includes blood, teeth, and jock straps, eh?!!
Maybe the plaintiff needs to come to the East and see how we handle cross-checks, eh!
Not saying whether I think this is valid or not, but a lot of times these suits linger in court for the following reason:
The ISO CGL form reads- This insurance does not apple to: a) Expected or Intended Injury \”Bodily injury\” or \”property damage\” expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.
I know this is a commercial form, but I would assume a personal coverage form would have the same or a very similar exclusion.
Anyway, the point is the wording \”expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.\” An argument that stands up surprisingly often is, \”I intended to punch him. I didn\’t expect or intend that the punch would result in bodily injury.\” \”I intended to trip him. I didn\’t expect that the trip would result in a broken nose.\” \”I intended to keep a colony of termites as pets. I didn\’t expect that they would escape and damage my neighbors property.\” In other words, from the standpoint of the insured, they did not think that their actions would result in BI or PD.
Ridiculous? Probably, but it happens.
Expected/intended injury is excluded…unless reasonable force being used to defend persons/property. So, the real question is…was his protective force reasonable?
Right- I\’m just saying that it\’s possible to use the defense that you intended to hit someone but you didn\’t intend for it to cause bodily injury.
he\’s just a ***** from the midwest..poor boy
I had a similar incident recently when I punched Compman in the face. He went down crying like a little baby.