I don't know if this is a "criminal justice" so much as "legal system" thread. But anyway, it's interesting. Was presented this morning on a local talk radio station as an example of judicial overreach. A woman paid a super low rate for insurance with a great deal of coverage but with a lot of exclusions. The circumstances of her death fell under one of the exclusions but it looks like the insurance company who sold her the policy may end up having to pay her heirs the full amount because she may not have understood some of the exclusions. ... or something like that ......
One interesting thing about the 4-3 decision is that it wasn't along the traditional conservative/liberal line. Conservatives were on both sides and liberals were on both sides.
From the dissenting opinion which at least at this time makes more sense to me:
Abrahamson said the two laws regarding rental car firms are not contradictory. Avis would pay Bethke more if the fatal crash resulted from Avis' own negligence, such as if poor maintenance led to equipment failure that caused the crash.
She was joined in dissent by Justices Michael Gableman and Patrick Crooks.
Without the other Wisconsin statute requiring the $50,000 payment for a negligent driver in a rental car, Avis would not owe Bethke anything under the common law, Abrahamson said.
"The law simply does not allow us to alter policy language to create coverage where none exists," she wrote.
If I followed that all the way through, it sounds like Auto Owners maybe on the hook for $450,000 for an underinsured motorist. The guy had only $50,000 in coverage, so he was underinsured. The guy contracted for $50,000 and that was paid out. Auto Owners was the one renegging on the coverage paid for.
Avis is the one who had to pay the insurance claim. And the law says they were liable for a max of $50,000. They're self-insuring and able to pay the full amount the law says they owe. So they're not underinsured, relative to what the law says they owe.
And the woman signed a policy which didn't cover payments above and beyond what a self-insuring company would give her.
.... that's how I was reading it.
But it still looks like Owners may be on the hook based on the current ruling.
plasmaball: Yes a woman's Orgasm is like trying to spot the wild snow leopard. You must wait weeks upon maybe months and if you are lucky you might spot a small puddle from this cunning creature called the orgasm. its more like sometimes you have to fake it because
Feb 7, 2013 12:05:17 GMT -5
plasmaball: we find you boring.
Feb 7, 2013 12:05:22 GMT -5
LadyGunSlinger: Your psychobabble is just that and shows you don't know shit about a woman's body.
Feb 7, 2013 12:27:10 GMT -5
plasmaball: sigh sarcasm is lost on the stupid. dear the womans body is not a rubix cube.
Feb 7, 2013 12:37:53 GMT -5
LadyGunSlinger: As if I am suppose to be able to discern your attitude over the interwebz??
Feb 7, 2013 12:44:55 GMT -5