Is this judge a retard or is she right?

[Narmer]

Hard to know unless you see the coverages in the actual policy. Personal liability for on premises occurrences is fairly common.

This thread makes it ez to see who has/hasn't owned a home before.

So it makes no difference if the son went to the lady's home, chopped off her head and drove around with it? In other word, does it matter if it happened on the property or not?

 

[piasabird]

Why not just sue the metal health facility for allowing such a Homocidal maniac out on a furlough. They have to have some of the responsibility. The parents of said child knew he was dangerous and they also have some of the responsibility. Whether the individual is responsible or not is up to a judge to decide. It is odd because you dont expect your child to kill your neighbor. A normal parent just doesnt expect their child to kill people.

If the policy covers home invasion, they might have to pay the owner of the home that was invaded. This all gets rather tricky, because a 31 year old is an adult, and he was just visiting. Maybe his medical insurance would cover such an incident. i.e. treatment for mental disease.

 

[woolfe9999]

The following statement from the judge is enough for me to say unequivocally that Judge Randy is retarded.

"Since the insured here . . . obviously did not expect and could not foresee her son murdering [her neighbor], that act was, in fact, an 'accident' from her point of view" -- and thus, must be covered, Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Randy Sue Marber wrote.

You do realize that the Judge was not defining "accident" according to ordinary definitions of the word, but according to the way in which it is defined in the applicable insurance policy, right? Note that the word "accident" is a quote within a quote, meaning it is a defined term in the policy.

Seriously, no one here is remotely qualified to opine on this issue.

- wolf

 

[highland145]

Seriously, no one here is remotely qualified to opine on this issue.

- wolf

Since when has that stopped anyone? Myself included.

 

[Drako]

You do realize that the Judge was not defining "accident" according to ordinary definitions of the word, but according to the way in which it is defined in the applicable insurance policy, right? Note that the word "accident" is a quote within a quote, meaning it is a defined term in the policy.

Seriously, no one here is remotely qualified to opine on this issue.

- wolf

I'm surprised your not one of the retards that voted "No, she's right".

 

[NoWhereM]

She's right. The question is whether or not she knew her son was a danger to her neighbors. A question of fact is a matter for the jury to decide, not the judge. If the judge decided she couldn't use her insurance to provide a defense it would virtually take the question of fact away from the jury.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm surprised your not one of the retards that voted "No, she's right".

Why would I even vote? There is no basis for an opinion here. None at all.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

Since when has that stopped anyone? Myself included.

It's a question of degree. It's one thing to opine on issues where you have limited expertise. It's another to comment on a Judge interpretting specific language in an insurance policy, which language BTW is defined in the policy itself ("accident" is always a defined term in insurance policies), without seeing how the word is defined in the policy. She isn't commenting on what "accident" means in common parlance. She is commenting on what it means in a particular insurance policie. It isn't just beyond the expertise of the posters here - it's based on information they have not seen. That is the problem.

Incidentally, ambiguities in insurance policies are construed in favor of the insured. Which is exactly as it should be, because insurance companies draft these policies which are 50+ pages long and completely prolix to the point where no one can understand them. And they frequently trot out obscure language to deny coverage. Because of that, courts resolve close questions in favor of insureds. Doesn't mean the judge was correct in this case, but it is a point to bear in mind.

- wolf

 

[joebloggs10]

She's right. The "accidental" or intentional nature of the son's act isn't fully relevant. The mom is being sued for negligence under the premise that she should have warned the neighbors that the son might decapitate them. In order to prove negligence the neighbors will have to show that the decapitation was a reasonably forseeable occurrence. Since the act is question is not the decapitation but the lack of warning, an HO policy using an NAIC standard would necessarily provide coverage to the named insured.

 

[Pens1566]

So it makes no difference if the son went to the lady's home, chopped off her head and drove around with it? In other word, does it matter if it happened on the property or not?

Semantics. Policies typically cover liability of residents of the property that is insured.

I'm with wolfe on this. Depending on the language of the policy itself, this could be entirely the right decision. Anyone saying definitively one way or the other is a retard if they haven't read this specific policy.

 

[StageLeft]

Based only on OP post I say retarded in great part because son is age of majority. Who knows, though, it's such an esoteric judgement anyway.

 

[WHAMPOM]

This is an order for the insurance company to PAY for the *defence* against the neighbor's lawsuit just like any liability coverage should. A point so many missed.

 

[woolfe9999]

Based only on OP post I say retarded in great part because son is age of majority. Who knows, though, it's such an esoteric judgement anyway.

I think you're confusing the issue of the merits of the lawsuit that was filed with the issue of whether the defendant's insurance ought to provide her with legal counsel to defend against it. If she cannot be liable because her son was over the age of majority, then the lawsuit should be thrown out, but that is totally separate from the issue of coverage.

- wolf

 

[mrjminer]

This is an order for the insurance company to PAY for the *defence* against the neighbor's lawsuit just like any liability coverage should. A point so many missed.

Nobody missed it, it's just stupid. By her definition, you could commit murder, claim it was not premeditated, then force the insurance company to pay your legal fees. The judge is a retard.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Intentional acts are not covered under any insurance policy.

 

[Pens1566]

Some people can't read

 

[joebloggs10]

Nobody missed it, it's just stupid. By her definition, you could commit murder, claim it was not premeditated, then force the insurance company to pay your legal fees. The judge is a retard.

Premeditation has little/no bearing on whether an act is intentional or not.

Intentional acts are not covered under any insurance policy.

Very true. You missed the part where the intentional act was committed by her SON and she was being sued not for the decapitation but for negligence by way of failure to warn so the determination of whether the decapitation was intentional or not is irrelevant.

 

[mrjminer]

Premeditation has little/no bearing on whether an act is intentional or not.

Not quite. If something was premeditated, the possibility of it being an accident is ruled out. If it wasn't premeditated, you could say... "I did not expect to nor had I foreseen murdering this person. This was clearly an 'accidental' murder from my point of view." The judge brought in point of view into classifying something as accidental, too. The judge is a retard.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Yes if the policy inforce covers this type of thing , But that usually applies to dependent children under 21 years old .

 

[Woofmeister]

(Sigh) The judge is correct. She's also a former insurance coverage and insurance defense attorney. http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ny/state/vote/marber_r/bio.html

(1) Most homeowner's insurance policies also provide coverage for claims against the named insured resulting from non-intentional acts; (2) the duty to defend an insured is broader than the duty to indemnify; (3) the insured is being sued for failing to anticipate the act of a third-party so it is, by definition, a non-intentional act by the insured.

Oh, and the suit against the insured is complete bullshit and likely will be be dismissed on summary judgment. New York law is clear that non medical professionals are not liable for failing to anticipate violence by the mentally ill. The only person who is liable for the death is the perpetrator, but since he's likely indigent, he's not worth suing.

 

[werepossum]

(Sigh) The judge is correct. She's also a former insurance coverage and insurance defense attorney. http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ny/state/vote/marber_r/bio.html

(1) Most homeowner's insurance policies also provide coverage for claims against the named insured resulting from non-intentional acts; (2) the duty to defend an insured is broader than the duty to indemnify; (3) the insured is being sued for failing to anticipate the act of a third-party so it is, by definition, a non-intentional act by the insured.

Oh, and the suit against the insured is complete bullshit and likely will be be dismissed on summary judgment. New York law is clear that non medical professionals are not liable for failing to anticipate violence by the mentally ill. The only person who is liable for the death is the perpetrator, but since he's likely indigent, he's not worth suing.

Perhaps then the judge is merely an idiot unable to properly frame her thoughts, but she specifically used the rationale that this was an accident from the mother's point of view.

"Since the insured here . . . obviously did not expect and could not foresee her son murdering [her neighbor], that act was, in fact, an 'accident' from her point of view" -- and thus, must be covered, Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Randy Sue Marber wrote.

An act is not necessarily an accident simply because it is non-intentional from one person's point of view. If she meant that MetLife was obligated to defend because of a clause within the policy or because of applicable New York law, then she should have said so without resorting to Clintonesque semantics. I suspect the act was non-intentional from the point of view of everyone else on the block, so by extension all the neighbors could be sued and their homeowner's insurance companies forced to defend their collective failure to foresee and warn each other.

Nonetheless you seem to be knowledgeable about New York insurance law, so I'll defer to your greater expertise and merely point this out as another example showing that we have a legal system, not a justice system. The time to kill a frivolous lawsuit is before the lawyers have made buttloads of money, not after.

 

[piasabird]

Intentional act is up to a great bit of interpretation. If a person is not mentally fit then the act is the result of a mental illness. If it was intentional, then the person is over 30 and then everything gets a bit spicey. I say countersue the mental institution.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I think the concept of dwelling insurance which includes homeowner/personal general liability insurance coverage escaped the OP and many others in this thread.

And since we do not know how 'general liability' was covered in this example this thread becomes Internet Wildfire.

The waving 'flag' is the amount (in this case, $300k) which I believe is a 'base standard' for general liability insurance in homeowner policies in many states.

I also suspect the 'negligence' laws in NY State (Classy brought this up): The owner is liable if the beheading occurred because the owner was unreasonably careless (negligent) in controlling her son.

It goes beyond 'dog bite' but the same principles apply.




--