This has the makings of a “Boston Legal” plot. Using this same rational, a woman who became pregnant in the back seat of an auto would have the pre-natal and birth related expenses covered by the auto policy.
The only coverage that would apply is medical payments. And they should give that back because they are STUPID enough to have a loaded gun inside the vehicle while being driven to the field!
Agree med pay owed – and – can construct rationale for extending auto liability, to wit: the plaintiff attorney likely argued the negligent driving of the operator “caused” the rife to discharge (hit an obstacle or something similar).
Disagree auto is the proper policy to look to for cover – should be the H/O, if any cover owed at all
When I was in New Mexico 28 years ago, we had a lady come to our claim rep in Gallup to file a claim against her boyfriend’s truck policy for getting her pregnant. He told her that wasn’t covered,that the policy was for accidents. She told him it was an accident and it happened in the truck.
uh,Calif Ex Pat, how about the very clear exclusions in any HO policy “which result from the ownership, operation, maint – – – – etc, of a motor vehicle”. There is clearly no coverage under any HO for an injury sustained in an auto.
As far as a “stupidity exclusion”, that would be a great thing for an insurance policy to have. It would reduce claim payments and premiums by about half!
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.
AW folks, the case was heard 30 years ago in calif, the outcome was a dual trigger for coverage, both the auto and ho policy applied.
This has the makings of a “Boston Legal” plot. Using this same rational, a woman who became pregnant in the back seat of an auto would have the pre-natal and birth related expenses covered by the auto policy.
Denny Crane!
This is the first thought that came to my mind too! Seems like a very slippery slope we don’t want to be going down!
The only coverage that would apply is medical payments. And they should give that back because they are STUPID enough to have a loaded gun inside the vehicle while being driven to the field!
Agree med pay owed – and – can construct rationale for extending auto liability, to wit: the plaintiff attorney likely argued the negligent driving of the operator “caused” the rife to discharge (hit an obstacle or something similar).
Disagree auto is the proper policy to look to for cover – should be the H/O, if any cover owed at all
When I was in New Mexico 28 years ago, we had a lady come to our claim rep in Gallup to file a claim against her boyfriend’s truck policy for getting her pregnant. He told her that wasn’t covered,that the policy was for accidents. She told him it was an accident and it happened in the truck.
uh,Calif Ex Pat, how about the very clear exclusions in any HO policy “which result from the ownership, operation, maint – – – – etc, of a motor vehicle”. There is clearly no coverage under any HO for an injury sustained in an auto.
As far as a “stupidity exclusion”, that would be a great thing for an insurance policy to have. It would reduce claim payments and premiums by about half!
A young man married a beautiful woman who had previously divorced ten
husbands.
On their wedding night, she told her new husband, ‘Please be gentle; I’m
still a virgin.
‘What?’ said the puzzled groom. ‘How can that be if you’ve been married
ten times?
‘Well, husband #1 was a Sales Representative; he kept telling me how
great it was going to be.
Husband #2 was in Software Services; he was never really sure how it was
supposed to function, but he said he’d look into it and get back to me.
Husband #3 was from Field Services; he said everything checked out
diagnostically but he just couldn’t get the system up.
Husband #4 was in Telemarketing; even though he knew he had the order,
he didn’t know when he would be able to deliver.
Husband #5 was an Engineer; he understood the basic process but wanted
three years to research, implement, and design a new state-of-the-art method.
Husband #6 was from Finance and Administration; he thought he knew how,
but he wasn’t sure whether it was his job or not.
Husband #7 was in Marketing; although he had a product, he was never
sure how to position it.
Husband #8 was a psychiatrist; all he ever did was talk about it.
Husband #9 was a gynecologist; all he did was look at it.
Husband #10 was a stamp collector; all he ever did was … God, I miss
him!
But now that I’ve married you, I’m so excited!’
‘Good,’ said the husband, ‘but, why?’
‘You’re in Insurance. This time I KNOW I’m gonna get screwed!’
That’s terrible! I laughed my rear off.