Rear ended on freeway in WA and driver was different than owner of the pick up. To state patrol I have a statement that he was speeding and was unable to stop but later at my visit to chiropractor, on written 'accident questionnaire form' that 'I think he was determined to hit me as he was angry'. can insurance company of the owner of the truck find this statement as an excuse saying that it was intentional act and not accident. Driver was not the owner of pick up, not sure if driver was insured at all. Owner admitted that driver had an permission to drive his pick up.Even though I gave a wrong statement to chiropractor, owner's insurance company is still liable to pay for owner's negligence? Also just my statement to chiropractor is enough for them to prove that it was intentional?
Your question is somewhat confusing. If you misstated something to your chiropractor or he didn't hear you correctly, you can ask the chiropractor to correct the entry with a later entry that corrects the conversation. But, the important thing simply comes down to the "intent" of the third party. Either the person drove negligently and it was an accident and it is covered or the person "intended" to run into you. In the latter event, the insurance company may be able to assert the "intentional act" exclusion against the driver so there is no insurance coverage. However, that doesn't end the discussion. As an innocent third party, the insurance company still may be obligated to pay you under the liability portion of the policy since there is a strong public policy in Washington to protect innocent third parties. Moreover, if there was some reason that the owner of the truck should know that the person he loaned the truck to was likely to drive negligently or was intent on trying to injure you or someone else, you may have a claim against the truck's owner for negligence. You should contact a local attorney immediately.
How would you know what his state of mind was when he hit you? It sounds like the police determined that he was at fault for going to fast for conditions. I would leave it at that. Unless, you come forward with some evidence that he hit you on fault I don't know how that statement you made will make this an intentional tort. I would suggest you hire an injury attorney in lakewood and discuss this matter with them. Even, so I suppose you are right to consider this a possible problem. Insurance companies do look for reasons to cut off benefits. See a qualified attorney and good luck.
the Nevada Supreme Court concluded in the case of Fire Ins. Exch. v. Cornell, 120 Nev. 303, 90 P.3d 978 (2004), that a homeowner’s carrier had no duty to defend or indemnify the parents of an adult child who committed statutory sexual seduction against allegations that the parents negligently supervised the adult son. In that case, the policy did not just exclude coverage for the intentional actor. The policy language was broader. The policy said that that there would be no coverage for damages intentionally caused by ANY insured. Therefore, the denial for coverage of the parents was upheld because of the intentional acts of the adult child.
I recently had a case in which my client's girlfriend hit her with her car after a heated verbal argument. My client was injured and understandably told the police officers and the EMS that her girlfriend purposefully ran her over. Indeed the hospital records reflected that it was an intentional act. The police promptly arrested the girlfriend and charged her with felony assault with a deadly weapon (the car). After a couple of weeks my client, after hearing the girlfriend's side of the story through friends, honestly believed that it was an accident - the girlfriend was "tunnel-vision" mad and tried to cut my client off with her car but in her fury she misjudged and hit my client. Rather than even attempting to contact the insurance company I immediately filed a Complaint along with requests for admissions directing the girlfriend/defendant to either admit or deny that she intentionally hit my client. The girlfriend denied that it was intentional and having admitted that the act was unintentional, the insurance company promptly settled the lawsuit for the policy limits which was in the six figures.
If you have a lawyer, go ahead and have them file a Complaint and Requests for Admissions of Fact asking the defendant driver to admit or deny that he or she intentionally hit you. If the defendant says is was intentional - case closed. However, in the more likely event that he says it was unintentional - you have eliminated that defense to coverage. Hope this helps and is not too lawyerly. With kindest regards,
Andrew P. Copenhaver
Get free answers from experienced attorneys.
25,069 answers this week
2,661 attorneys answering
Get answers from top-rated lawyers.
25,069 answers this week
2,661 attorneys answering
Don't speak legalese? We define thousands of terms in plain English.Browse our legal dictionary