Is this judge a retard or is she right?

[Narmer]

She's trying to force the insurance company to pay for a negligence lawsuit that has nothing to do with homeowner's insurance.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/judge_oks_grisly_insurance_payout_MR0GuQSI0NzPeJEB9rTx3M

Judge OKs grisly insurance payout
By JANON FISHER

Last Updated: 4:51 AM, July 13, 2010

Posted: 3:38 AM, July 13, 2010

Damage from fallen trees and broken water pipes, maybe -- but homeowners' insurance that covers murderous decapitation?

A Nassau County judge has ruled that MetLife must pay as much as $300,000 for Jacqueline Marshall to defend herself against a negligence lawsuit filed because her mentally ill son, Evan Marshall, then 31, decapitated and dismembered her neighbor.

"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.

The decision comes nearly four years after Marshall -- on furlough from an upstate psychiatric facility -- brutally chopped up former Glen Cove teacher Denice Fox, 57, and then drove around Long Island with her severed head in his car. He's serving a 30-year prison term.

The victim's husband, Jay Fox, and two children filed suit against Jacqueline Marshall in 2008, claiming that she knew of her son's twisted propensity for violence but failed to warn neighbors that he was home.

 

[waggy]

ok thats nuts..No the insurance should nto cover it

 

[Thump553]

Please post the insurance policy so we can give a meaningful decision in your poll.

Be aware though that HO insurance policies have been construed to cover a lot more than the average person thinks they do.

BTW a truly retarded person is not going to sit as a judge in any state in any event, which I think gives the conclusive answer to your poll.

If you want to discuss the public policy aspects of whether a HO insurance policy should cover this type of incident, you should have asked that question.

 

[woolfe9999]

How can anyone on this board offer an opinion about insurance coverage without reading the applicable insurance policy and understanding how to interpret it?

- wolf

 

[mrjminer]

The judge is a retard.

 

[spidey07]

How can anyone on this board offer an opinion about insurance coverage without reading the applicable insurance policy and understanding how to interpret it?

- wolf

Same way any other decision is formed. Knee-jerk jump to conclusions mat!

I can "almost" see the judges point but would need to see the policy.

 

[Moonbeam]

How can anyone on this board offer an opinion about insurance coverage without reading the applicable insurance policy and understanding how to interpret it?

- wolf

By that reasoning why would anybody have an opinion about anything especially abut the kind of topics that get posted here? This is a place where donkeys come to bray.

The verdict is divine retribution for all those folk in the world who expected something to be covered and found out, too late, that such coverage was proscribed in the fine print.

 

[nick1985]

tard

 

[classy]

It depends on the policy. Homeowners insurance can be pretty far reaching and it can extend to the homeowner and just not the house. Homewoners insurance can protect the homeowner from a lawsuit that could cause the owner to lose his home. My guess is that is why the judge made this ruling. But as many have said without seeing the policy its hard to say whether she is right or wrong. This is about as bizarre as it gets, but it is a very plausible scenario. Dangerous precedent though it if it stands, very dangerous.

 

[Narmer]

Please post the insurance policy so we can give a meaningful decision in your poll.

Be aware though that HO insurance policies have been construed to cover a lot more than the average person thinks they do.

BTW a truly retarded person is not going to sit as a judge in any state in any event, which I think gives the conclusive answer to your poll.

If you want to discuss the public policy aspects of whether a HO insurance policy should cover this type of incident, you should have asked that question.

Point the way and I will post it. Unless it's available to the public, I would presume that having your son going on a killing spree would not be reason enough to get a payout.

 

[mrjminer]

The problem is that this is in no way, shape, or form accidental. There is no chance the son "accidentally" chopped some lady up then drove around with her head in his car. Sure, the mom didn't foresee it happening, but just because you didn't anticipate something doesn't make it accidental.

"Ooops... my relative just came over and accidentally kidnapped the neighbor, then accidentally held them down so he could accidentally shit in their mouth. Good thing I have homeowner's insurance."

 

[Schadenfroh]

I foresee a future supreme court justice, so yes... she is a biased retard that really hates insurance companies.

 

[highland145]

terdy decision from a tard.

 

[DaveSimmons]

My renter's insurance includes $100K of "personal liability" insurance.

I know someone where their homeowner's insurance covered defending against a libel suit.

In other words: it might make perfect legal sense. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't seen the policy.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I also could imagine this being a legit thing. My HO insurance covers crap that my guests do on my property.. I'd be surprised if it went so far as to cover a guest riding around with a neighbor's head in the car but meh..


As others have said.. It can be surprising what HO insurance will cover..

 

[classy]

The more I think of it, the more I believe the judge may be right. Homeowners insurance will pay to defend a homeowner against a lawsuit that may cause the owner to lose his or her home. While the judge may have expanded the language here I think its plausible to see this in the same light as if a homeowner's dog got loose and bit someone.

The person sues the homeowner, but in that scenario the homeowners insurance would kick in and pay for damages. I know because of that our insurance won't cover certain kinds of dogs. Now whether this same line of thinking extends to a person? If the home owner knew her son was mentally ill and a possible violent danger than it may have been neglient of her not to tell her neighbors. I am just speculating where the judge may have connected her ruling.

 

[Zebo]

LOL unanimous 15/0 someone should buck the trend just to be that way, If I thought of it I'da dun it.

 

[Drako]

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.

 

[werepossum]

I voted "She's a retard" based on the logic displayed in the quote - just because you do not foresee something happening does not make it an accident. However it's clearly possible that the homeowner's policy might be written in such a way as to cover intentional criminal acts by guests or residents - I highly doubt it, but it's possible. It's perhaps a bit more likely that the company held an umbrella policy and it is merely misidentified in this story as a homeowner's policy. A more retarded judge would be the one who gave the murderer thirty years instead of life or, better yet, the chair or the needle - although that might have been a jury.

The truly bizarre thing about this ruling is that she ruled against MetLife saying: "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." Yet the suit is for negligence, meaning that a reasonable person would have taken action to avoid the incident and the defendant failed to do so. You can't possibly have something that one cannot foresee and yet is negligent for failing to foresee, so if MetLife must pay for the defense then the suit should be dismissed. Therefore the judge is a 'tard.

 

[zylander]

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.

Was thinking the same thing. So basically if you can't forsee a murder happening then that murder is really just an accident?

 

[MotF Bane]

The truly bizarre thing about this ruling is that she ruled against MetLife saying: "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." Yet the suit is for negligence, meaning that a reasonable person would have taken action to avoid the incident and the defendant failed to do so. You can't possibly have something that one cannot foresee and yet is negligent for failing to foresee, so if MetLife must pay for the defense then the suit should be dismissed. Therefore the judge is a 'tard.

LOL, nice.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

Judges break every rule and every law they can just to try to get their name in the history books. Everybody knows this?

 

[JEDIYoda]

The judge is a retard.

as it appears now Narmer is the one who is retarded....

 

[HumblePie]

Also, I take news stories with a grain of salt. Who knows if the decision for Met to pay was based on some sort of accident clause as the story alludes to? Unless I read the court case and appropriate insurance policy, a decision can not be made. We have no idea what kind of insurance the home owner was paying for. You'd be surprised what sort of stuff people end up paying for but don't know it. Insurance companies do this all the time as "scams" to get the person paying more money for some remote possibility that would almost never occur. For example, getting home owners in the Arizona desert to pay for "flood insurance" for a home is basically a scam. Who knows, there might even had been a incase of family member commits murder on the neighbors coverage. Seriously, how often does that happen in my well-to-do neighborhoods?

 

[Pens1566]

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.