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.
For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.