Florida Concealed Carry banner

Car jacking gone RIGHT!

2510 Views 49 Replies 17 Participants Last post by  Ronnie948
This guy knew something was up and kept his distance.... until they tried to corner him.

  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2
1 - 5 of 50 Posts
Cars have no duty to protect you, I’ve memorized all the cases. I’m weird like that.
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 2
If you had a lawyer with half a brain (many of them do have half a brain) I think you could win the coverage dispute 95 out of 100 times.

Many of these things turn on “public policy” which is kind of the reason behind certain provisions in the law or a contract. Sometimes the law actually makes sense. It would make sense to exclude coverage for an intentional act if I looked at the pitting on the front bumper of my little Mercedes SUV and in order to get it repainted, I intentionally drove into the garage. That would be a pretty clear case and it does really have pitting but I think I’ll pay for it myself.

In the case we were discussing about the carjacking, was the driver of the car intentionally trying to hit the other car? I think no, I believe a court would determine that he was freaked out, terrified and his only thinking process was to save his life. Hitting the door of the other car was not intentional, it was an inadvertent part of the escape plan. In preparation to say this I just looked at a model state farm insuring agreement. I did not see an intentional acts exclusion in the collision portion.
See less See more
You missed my point
I didn’t miss your point, I was referring to the question above you regarding insurance coverage.

You raise a good question and I don’t know the answer. I think I know the procedure for arriving with the answer, the court would have to weigh the benefit to the public of having these type safety devices versus the risk of the safety devices in extraordinary circumstances actually causing injury. It would be a monumental argument I would think.

I know that sometimes when I’m driving my wife’s Tesla and it is on auto pilot or cruise, a car in the right lane may slow down suddenly and the Tesla jams on the brakes. It’s maddening.
I don’t think there’s any question the carrier would lose that debate in court. Intent would have to apply to the desire to damage the car. This guy’s intent was to save his life and he did not make a conscious decision “hey, I think I’ll damage my car.” I can get a new paint job.
I don’t perceive anything as an argument. None of this discussion stuff is personal.The way I see it under that exclusion is that the insurance carrier, to win, must demonstrate that the insured intended to damage his vehicle. In other words there must be some specific intent to cause the damage usually for some nefarious reason like getting a new paint job.
  • Like
Reactions: 4
1 - 5 of 50 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.