Court Finds Intentional/Criminal Act Exclusion Applies to Insured who Drove her Vehicle into Pedestrian
Fred Valz represented an insurer who sought a declaration that an intentional/criminal act exclusion in its policy barred coverage above the minimum limits for an insured who struck a man attempting to repossess her vehicle. The court found that while there was no evidence of the insured’s actual intent, the policy excluded coverage based on what a reasonable person in the insured’s shoes would know. The court concluded that when the insured drove her vehicle forward knowing the pedestrian was standing directly in front of the vehicle, a reasonable person in the insured’s situation would realize that injury likely would result. Thus, the exclusion applied to bar coverage over the minimum Georgia limits.