While the story is as good as any journalism these days I am always curious.
Did the carrier ever have an opportunity to settle at policy limits for a release of their insured?
What were the defense cost of the case as it went from one court to the next?
Texas is a big state; carriers appear to now be liable for actions of insured who operate in a manner similar to this individual. What about the police that chase them?
Very interesting from a professional stand point – this is the same court that ruled against a WC claimant and stirred up symathetic Texas legislators who are of a patiular mind set on these matters – you may have seen the story on these pages.
I am not answering any of these questions because I don’t have the facts of the case but it is clear it took the Supreme Court of Texas to over-ride the interpretations of several lower courts.
I am always as a professional concerned that eventually some judge or judges will let sympathy over-reach the law. Does this mean cut you losses and pay for a release or should you fight on principle and let a court set precidence?
All kidding aside. You are correct John, this case just set a precedent. You think auto rates are high now? The actuaries will have to factor in the probability of insured’s being involved in these collisions. CA will probably be hit the hardest. They hold the record for freeway chases.
First I am glad that the Tanner family will receive financial compensation for the injuries they sustained. They deserve it and it is a far cry from making them whole for what they had to go through.
Secong I only wish that the law makers and judges could understand that everytime that the insurance companies pay a claim like this it only makes all our premiums go up. When are they going to learn that you can’t cover the mistakes of the lawless individuals of our society and pay for their mistakes with my money. The courts and the prisons are supported by our tax dollars to pay for people that willfully and intentionally disregard the laws of the land. If they want to break the law then they should not benefit from our society. It would be cheaper to buy a deserted island and banish them to it and see if they can survive. Enough is enough America. Wake up and grow a backbone and tell these idiots to act right or get out. It does not matter your citizenship status or your nationallity or your sexual preference. Live by the rules or go somewhere else to screw up your life and others around you.
“Reprehensible” is a modest term to describe this guys actions. However, it is somewhat surprising that this case had to get to the TX supremes for this ruling. Should the lower courts ruling have prevailed it would easily lead to a lot of other denied liability claims based on what one “should of”, “could of”, “might of” known and so on. The intentional act exclusion has historically, in Texas, meant that if one committed an act with the intent of harming another or damaging property it should not be covered. This was an act of a stupid and irresponsible person but there is no evidence he had any intent behind his extraordinarily negligent behavior other than avoid being apprehended. Were the police whom were pursuing liable since it could be reasonably believed that such pursuit could lead to injury of another party and/or property damage?
How does speeding over 100 mph not constitute intentional? What happened, did his foot get stuck or was there bubblegum under the peddle? And for those who think the police are liable for doing their job, maybe we should just go to having Bobbies who walk a beat! The kid violated the law and his contract, there should be no payment. Dad should have had enough coverage on his own!
This court must have been “high” in rendering this absurd ruling. The “intentional act” argument is pathetically flawed to begin with. Even an idiot would deny “intent” to harm. The issue should be negligence. The fact that this moron tried to out run the cops at a high rate of speed constitutes gross negligence and liability for what results. You don’t need “intent”. I agree with all who believe this ruling sucks and sets a dangerous precedent. Insurance is for responsible people facing average risks, not a-holes like this.
Idiocy and precedents aside, it is easy to lambaste the system for leniency and allowing a liability policy to pay out on a stupid and egregious act. Stupid has never been excluded. The courts look at liability (especially auto liability) as a way to protect the public interest (ergo mandatory liability). Courts historically “look” for coverage not exclusions in these types of cases. Carriers know that and usually work to prevent cases such as this becoming new and even more lenient case law. As an ex adjuster I can state that there was a time that I would have been outraged at this. Now 20 years later, I find it surprising that it ever made it to the courts and, having done so, that it had to go the the TX Supreme Court. Keep in mind that the TX Supreme Court is pretty conservative these days. It is no longer the bastion of liberalism as it was back prior to the mid 80’s as was reported on 60 Minutes at that time.Just keep in mind that if coverage can ever broadly exclude “stupid” rates will be so low as to eliminate the possibility of earning enough commission on a sale to buy a meal.
This ruling is amazing. I feel for the Tanners but please, high court of Texas, explain to me how a person trying to escape the police, speeding in excess of 100 mph through an intersection, is not doing this intentional? If this is not intentional, then maybe people should tell the highway patrol their act of speeding was not intentional and therefore they are not to be held accountable.
The act of “speeding” is obviously intentional. Liability pays for damages caused by intentional actions all the time. Was the act perpetrated with the intent of causing damage? In a fit if road rage, did someone run over another person? that is clearly within the intent of an intentional act that is meant to be excluded. I did the act with the intent to cause the damage. People drive fast and drunk all the time causing all kinds of horrific claims. Very seldom do you hear of a carrier trying to invoke the intentional act exclusion.
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.
While the story is as good as any journalism these days I am always curious.
Did the carrier ever have an opportunity to settle at policy limits for a release of their insured?
What were the defense cost of the case as it went from one court to the next?
Texas is a big state; carriers appear to now be liable for actions of insured who operate in a manner similar to this individual. What about the police that chase them?
Very interesting from a professional stand point – this is the same court that ruled against a WC claimant and stirred up symathetic Texas legislators who are of a patiular mind set on these matters – you may have seen the story on these pages.
I am not answering any of these questions because I don’t have the facts of the case but it is clear it took the Supreme Court of Texas to over-ride the interpretations of several lower courts.
I am always as a professional concerned that eventually some judge or judges will let sympathy over-reach the law. Does this mean cut you losses and pay for a release or should you fight on principle and let a court set precidence?
Much room for thought.
Life comes at you fast.
All kidding aside. You are correct John, this case just set a precedent. You think auto rates are high now? The actuaries will have to factor in the probability of insured’s being involved in these collisions. CA will probably be hit the hardest. They hold the record for freeway chases.
First I am glad that the Tanner family will receive financial compensation for the injuries they sustained. They deserve it and it is a far cry from making them whole for what they had to go through.
Secong I only wish that the law makers and judges could understand that everytime that the insurance companies pay a claim like this it only makes all our premiums go up. When are they going to learn that you can’t cover the mistakes of the lawless individuals of our society and pay for their mistakes with my money. The courts and the prisons are supported by our tax dollars to pay for people that willfully and intentionally disregard the laws of the land. If they want to break the law then they should not benefit from our society. It would be cheaper to buy a deserted island and banish them to it and see if they can survive. Enough is enough America. Wake up and grow a backbone and tell these idiots to act right or get out. It does not matter your citizenship status or your nationallity or your sexual preference. Live by the rules or go somewhere else to screw up your life and others around you.
So which is it? You’re glad they got paid or pissed off that these types of rulings cause premiums to rise?
“Reprehensible” is a modest term to describe this guys actions. However, it is somewhat surprising that this case had to get to the TX supremes for this ruling. Should the lower courts ruling have prevailed it would easily lead to a lot of other denied liability claims based on what one “should of”, “could of”, “might of” known and so on. The intentional act exclusion has historically, in Texas, meant that if one committed an act with the intent of harming another or damaging property it should not be covered. This was an act of a stupid and irresponsible person but there is no evidence he had any intent behind his extraordinarily negligent behavior other than avoid being apprehended. Were the police whom were pursuing liable since it could be reasonably believed that such pursuit could lead to injury of another party and/or property damage?
How does speeding over 100 mph not constitute intentional? What happened, did his foot get stuck or was there bubblegum under the peddle? And for those who think the police are liable for doing their job, maybe we should just go to having Bobbies who walk a beat! The kid violated the law and his contract, there should be no payment. Dad should have had enough coverage on his own!
This court must have been “high” in rendering this absurd ruling. The “intentional act” argument is pathetically flawed to begin with. Even an idiot would deny “intent” to harm. The issue should be negligence. The fact that this moron tried to out run the cops at a high rate of speed constitutes gross negligence and liability for what results. You don’t need “intent”. I agree with all who believe this ruling sucks and sets a dangerous precedent. Insurance is for responsible people facing average risks, not a-holes like this.
Idiocy and precedents aside, it is easy to lambaste the system for leniency and allowing a liability policy to pay out on a stupid and egregious act. Stupid has never been excluded. The courts look at liability (especially auto liability) as a way to protect the public interest (ergo mandatory liability). Courts historically “look” for coverage not exclusions in these types of cases. Carriers know that and usually work to prevent cases such as this becoming new and even more lenient case law. As an ex adjuster I can state that there was a time that I would have been outraged at this. Now 20 years later, I find it surprising that it ever made it to the courts and, having done so, that it had to go the the TX Supreme Court. Keep in mind that the TX Supreme Court is pretty conservative these days. It is no longer the bastion of liberalism as it was back prior to the mid 80’s as was reported on 60 Minutes at that time.Just keep in mind that if coverage can ever broadly exclude “stupid” rates will be so low as to eliminate the possibility of earning enough commission on a sale to buy a meal.
This ruling is amazing. I feel for the Tanners but please, high court of Texas, explain to me how a person trying to escape the police, speeding in excess of 100 mph through an intersection, is not doing this intentional? If this is not intentional, then maybe people should tell the highway patrol their act of speeding was not intentional and therefore they are not to be held accountable.
The act of “speeding” is obviously intentional. Liability pays for damages caused by intentional actions all the time. Was the act perpetrated with the intent of causing damage? In a fit if road rage, did someone run over another person? that is clearly within the intent of an intentional act that is meant to be excluded. I did the act with the intent to cause the damage. People drive fast and drunk all the time causing all kinds of horrific claims. Very seldom do you hear of a carrier trying to invoke the intentional act exclusion.