The legal argument was this:
Cars driven by Jack Morrell and Eric Kalenka collided in the drive-through lane of a Alaska Taco Bell. Morrell got out of his car, and fight ensued, and he stabbed Kalenka to death (and was subsequently convicted of second degree murder).
Kalenka’s estate submitted a claim with their auto insurance company, on the grounds that the death occurred as a result of the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the motor vehicle (the claim went to Kalenka’s insurance company because Morell was uninsured and Kalenka’s policy covered liability for uninsured drivers).
The insurance company, not surprisingly, insisted this wasn’t a valid claim.
After you’ve commented/voted, please click here to see how this was resolved. Believe it or not, this case made it all the way up to the Alaska Supreme Court
In this case, yes. Because in this case the death appears to have been a direct result of the accident (accident causes argument which leads to death) the same as if the accident had caused a physical injury that lead to death. I’m assuming no prior relationship between the deceased and his (alleged) assailant.
This is like saying the alarm clock is responsible for a person who trips on the way to the bathroom … if the clock hadn’t awakened them, they would still have been in bed. Heck, the accident might have been cause by this guy’s short fuse and then not have been an “accident” at all.
Seems to me that you’ve got a significant break in the chain of causality there. Maybe if you could prove that the car accident caused head trauma in Mr Morrell which short-circuited his self-control, maybe then you could make a reasonable claim. But that seems like a very long shot.
I disagree with the ruling, I think. Road rage is something that we all have to deal with, and unless the insurance company could show that the fight was about something other than the accident, they should pay up. Saying that the fight was separate from the accident was just wrong, IMO.
Actually, I’d think the burdon of proof was on the claimant, not the insurance company.
If someone says, for instance, that a UFO captured the car, beat it up, and dropped it back to the earth, the insurance company shouldn’t have to prove that that’s impossible to avoid paying the claim.
(Ye gods, I’ve sided with the insurance company! Maybe the world really will end soon …)
It depends on who’s suing whom, as the plaintiff always starts with the burden of proof. Here, the victim’s family is suing the insurance company, so they have to prove that the insurance company is liable. If they had won, the insurance company would be able to sue the stabber to recover what it paid out, and in that case, the insurance company would have the burden of proof.
Normally, liability insurance doesn’t cover intentional torts, so if you run someone over on purpose, your insurance doesn’t have to pay the resulting judgment from the injury or wrongful death suit against you. The questions would be whether or not the “uninsured motorist” portion of your own insurance covers you if you are the victim of an intentional tort, and whether that tort falls under the policy.
If the victim didn’t start the fight, my inclination would be to require the insurance company to pay, and give them a cause of action against the tortfeasor (who is, of course, the person who ultimately SHOULD pay. But if he can’t, then the insurance company should take the loss.) If the victim STARTED the fight, then all bets are off.