No Insurance Coverage in South Dakota Crash That Hurt 4 Boys

By CHET BROKAW | April 22, 2013

  • April 22, 2013 at 3:02 pm
    Carl Spackler says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 0

    Nevermind the 30 days before hand that she had to pay when the premium was initially due. I’m sure that if she was 3x’s the legal limit by lunch that she had really pondered the 12:01 am coverage termination. I’ve been known to read insurance policies when I’ve had 5 G&Ts by 9am, but then I’m in insurance.

    My sympathies to the boys and their families.

  • April 22, 2013 at 3:05 pm
    Jester says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 0

    A contract is a contract. Maybe if this woman stayed sober she’d pay more attention to important things like paying her premium. The personal injury attorney is crying because he doesn’t get paid. Too bad. “giving the benefit of the doubt” isn’t a sound business practice when it come to insurance contracts. The only argument could be if “the check had a mailing date” of the day prior to the expiration. 12:01am has been and is the expiration date for P&C policies since the beginning of time.

  • April 22, 2013 at 4:17 pm
    J.S. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 1

    A wonderful case study for why you should purchase uninsured and underinsured motorists coverage with limits equal to your liability limits (umbrella too). Then you don’t need to ask for the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt.

  • April 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm
    tinaIN says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So wouldn’t the medpay on the parents of these boys pay for something? And what about UIM on the parent’s policies? Then the parent’s insurance company can go after this woman…right?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*