Can an auto policy cover their insured when they intentionally ram someone else’s vehicle? Problem: Alice is a policy holder for uninsured/under-insured motorist losses with insurer A; Bob has most likely no insurance coverage for intentional losses he caused at least not to property damages with insurer B. Bob intentionally rams Alice’s vehicle on a public road; insurer B denies intentionality on behalf of Bob, and declines liability; however, not on the grounds that Bob is not covered for intentional losses. Alice reports the matter to her insurer, and they assume liability, but once they receive the denial not based on lack of coverage, insurer A denies liability. Now the onus is on Alice to prove that Bob did not, in fact, not have coverage, and was “uninsured” by a reasonably clear standard. This could be met by a showing that it would be illegal for insurer B to insure Bob since neither insurer A or Bob owes a duty to Alice to reveal their contract. In fact, all laws in effect at the time of entering into the contract is, as if by reference, cited in the contract itself therefore, the public policy would, by the operation of law, void a provision that would allow such a coverage. ADDITIONAL FACTS: Bob is bankrupt, and insurer B denies liability on alleged facts based on evidence it will not share absent a court order that which it interprets so as to conclude Alice is at fault instead of admitting on Bob's behalf a finding of intentional wrongdoing, and deny liability on the basis of lack of coverage. Questions: Is it against public policy to insure a motorist for intentional property damage caused by the insured with their vehicle to another’s property excluding covering any damage to the property of the insured? Is it, in the State of California or is it prohibited by federal law? And if so, what laws or precedent prohibits it? Primarily interested in the above jurisdictions, but any other would be interesting for comparison!
My findings so far are: It does appear to be against public policy at least in California and Oregon. In California outlawed statutorily — Ins. Code § 533 provides: “An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured’s agents or others.” Also on point is Civ. Code, § 1668: “All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.&quot; Affirmed, for e.g., in Tomerlin v. Canadian Indem. Co., 61 Cal.2d 638, 39 Cal. Rptr. 731, 394 P.2d 571 (Cal. 1964) “[A]n insurer may not indemnify against liability caused by the insured's wilful wrong (Civ. Code, § 1668; Ins. Code, § 533; see, e.g., Abbott v. Western Nat. Indem. Co. (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 302, 305 [ 331 P.2d 997])” In Oregon, Outlawed by case law: “Despite variations in the language of the policies, this court has interpreted various policy provisions excluding insurance coverage for intentionally-caused injuries similarly. [...] For an exclusion from insurance coverage for intentional conduct to apply, &quot;[i]t is not sufficient that the insured's intentional, albeit unlawful, acts have resulted in unintended harm; the acts must have been committed for the purpose of inflicting the injury and harm before either a policy provision excluding intentional harm applies or the public policy against insurability attaches.&quot; [Citation.]” Ledford v. Gutoski, 319 Or. 397, 877 P.2d 80 (Or. 1994)
The correct term for this insurance is personal liability insurance - it is neither compulsory nor common in common law jurisdictions. However, some aspects of it may be bundled with other insurances like homeowners, landlords and contents insurance. Liability for damage in common law flows either from a breach of contract or a tort. Of course, if you intentionally cause harm you have crossed the line from civil liability to criminality and no insurance will indemnify you. For your specific examples: [I]f, say, a candle falls over and I burn my flat? If your lease prohibited you from having open flames then this would be a clear breach of contract and you would have to pay for the damage to the flat (and your own property, of course). If your lease was silent on this, then you would be liable if you were negligent and each party would bear their own losses if you weren't (i.e. it was a pure "accident"). What if a flower pot falls from my windowsill and accidentally kills someone? The passerby has no action under contract as they don't have one. They can sue you, or the landlord, or the body corporate (or all three) for negligence - the landlord's and/or body corporate's insurance would respond and if it included a waiver of subrogation (most do), the insurer could not sue any of the other parties for their losses. What if my trolley bumps into an old lady at the supermarket and I break her hip? What if I walk on my friend's glasses and break them? You have no contract with either of these people so they cannot sue you under one. If they can prove negligence then you have to pay for the damage. If it is, instead a pure "accident" then they bear the cost. However, for the old lady, she is way more likely to sue the supermarket as they will have insurance. It is not as useful in the UK as it is in France due to the need for the plaintiff to prove a breach of contract or negligence. In the UK, you are not responsible for accidents you cause - only accidents you cause negligently.
Knowingly selling a car with an incorrect odometer reading is a crime unless this is disclosed properly. It also gives rise to a right of private action, that is the buyer can sue. The California Vehicle Code, Article 10. Odometers includes the following provisions which might be relevant to this issue: Sec 28050 It is unlawful for any person to advertise for sale, to sell, to use, or to install on any part of a motor vehicle or on an odometer in a motor vehicle any device which causes the odometer to register any mileage other than the true mileage driven. Sec 28050.5. It is unlawful for any person with the intent to defraud to operate a motor vehicle on any street or highway knowing that the odometer of such vehicle is disconnected or nonfunctional. Sec 28051 It is unlawful for any person to disconnect, turn back, advance, or reset the odometer of any motor vehicle with the intent to alter the number of miles indicated on the odometer gauge. The US National Highway Transportation Safety Agency (NHTSA), part of the federal DoT, has a page on &quot;Odometer Fraud&quot;. It mentions that such fraud is a crime under federal law, as well as under state law. It advises reproving such fraud to the NHTSA in cases of bulk fraud, and reporting individual cases to a state agency. it gives links for both purposes. The US DoJ has a page on &quot;THE FEDERAL ODOMETER TAMPERING STATUTES&quot; It lists 49 U.S.C. § 32703(2).(Tampering); 49 U.S.C. § 32705(a)(2). (false statement); U.S.C. § 32703(4) (conspiracy) and 49 U.S.C. § 32709(b) (criminal penalties). 49 U.S. Code § 32705 provides that: (a) (1) Disclosure Requirements.—Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation that include the way in which information is disclosed and retained under this section, a person transferring ownership of a motor vehicle shall give the transferee the following written disclosure: (a)(1)(A) Disclosure of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer. (a)(1)(B) Disclosure that the actual mileage is unknown, if the transferor knows that the odometer reading is different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually traveled. (a)(2) A person transferring ownership of a motor vehicle may not violate a regulation prescribed under this section or give a false statement to the transferee in making the disclosure required by such a regulation. (a)(3) A person acquiring a motor vehicle for resale may not accept a written disclosure under this section unless it is complete. Ther is a page &quot;How To Fight Odometer Fraud&quot; from Jalopnik which mentions tht there is a private right of action, so that one can sue to enforce the above federal law, and also under various state laws. (This page also discusses how to detect and confirm tampering in some cases.) A page &quot;California Lemon Law Lawyer Discusses Odometer Fraud&quot; discusses how suits may be brought in such cases. This page, is of course, intended ti induce people to hire this law firm for such suits. It seems that such suits can include the award of attorney's fees and other costs. This makes it more attractive to consult a lawyer before proceeding with such suits. Many lawyers will offer initial consultations at little or no cost, so it may well be worth such a consultation.
Is there a way to accept civil liability without admitting a criminal violation? Are you allowed to tell the police, “I accept full responsibility for the accident, but I don’t wish to discuss what happened”? You can allow a default judgment as to liability to enter in a civil case (and then possibly even have a contested adversarial hearing on damages), or you can reach a settlement dismissing the case with prejudice in exchange for payment of a certain settlement without admission of liability. Indeed, this is what actually happens in about 90%+ of car accident cases that aren't resolved at trial or in a motion for summary judgment (something that is quite rare in a car accident case). Likewise, you can plea &quot;no contest&quot; or even being convicted following a trial of a traffic violation in connection with an accident, without the outcome of the traffic case having a binding effect on the outcome of a civil case, even though this seems contrary to the logic of how results in one case determine issues in other cases (called &quot;collateral estoppel&quot;). Basically, this rule has been enacted in most U.S. jurisdictions (usually by statute but in some rare cases by judicial decision), in order to prevent local traffic trial cases from turning into expensive high stakes battles that are really about liability for huge economic damages, in a traffic court process designed to efficiently deal with disputes in the tens to thousands of dollars at stake, rather than the tens of thousands to millions of dollars that are at stake in a personal injury case where there have been serious injuries. However, while the outcome and plea in a traffic case in not binding in a civil lawsuit involving a related accident, any testimony given under oath in one case can be used in the other case in almost all circumstances.
Under U.S. law, when you hire someone and they are injured while doing work for which you hired them, the ordinary tort law regime does not apply. Instead, you are in the worker's compensation regime, under which the employer is strictly liable for the injury. Whether the employee or the employer was at fault in any way (negligent, grossly negligent, reckless, or intentional) is largely irrelevant (except that worker's compensation insurance does not cover the employer's intentional harm to workers which is the employer's responsibility to pay on an uninsured basis). This applies to all injuries on the job, whether or not they are related to the work, and whether or not anyone involved with the employer actually did anything wrong. For example, an employer has strict liability for the injuries of a convenience store clerk sustained by the clerk in an armed robbery of the convenience store where the clerk is working undertaken by felon who escaped from prison hours before due to the carelessness of the prison guards. Usually, that injury is fully insured if the employer has the legally required worker's compensation insurance in place, but the penalty for not having it in place is most commonly that the employer has liability to the full extent, if not greater, than the employer's worker's compensation insurance would have if it was in place. Worker's compensation recoveries are limited to actual economic damages like lost wages and medical expenses, without regard to non-economic harms like pain and suffering and worker's compensation plans also have a very limited death benefit when the worker has no dependents. But these limitations on damages don't always apply when the employer fails to have worker's compensation insurance in place. Worker's compensation liability varies from place to place, but in most states it applies to independent contractors who have not put in place worker's compensation insurance for themselves as well. In your example, Fred has full liability for Barney's injuries. Uriah does not have liability for Barney's injuries due to his good faith belief that he was acting in self-defense or defense of others. But note that Fred's strict liability for Barney's injuries does not preclude a third-party from having liability as well, both to Barney (for damages for which there is not employer liability under the worker's compensation regime such as pain and suffering, and/or in the case of an intentional tort like the armed robbery of the convenience store, punitive damages), and to the employer/worker's compensation insurer for a subrogation claim to recover the amounts paid to Barney as a result of the third-party's negligence or intentional acts.
I'm assuming you are talking about something like this You didn't specify where you live, but in many places it is illegal to block the sidewalk with a car. I just looked up my local ordinances and it is there. In fact, it is your driveway, but often the land up to and including the sidewalk is considered part of a public easement. Typically you are required by law to maintain any grass in the easement, but if the sidewalk were to fall into disrepair, the local government would fix it. Information on easements can also be found in your local ordinances, here is an example in my area. Should I fight this ticket? You can try, but I doubt you will win. Is there anything I can do to my driveway to allow me to actually use it? I would suggest asking on Lifehacks. And post a link here to your question if you do, I'd be curious to know what they come up with.
Misrepresentation At common law, if you are induced to enter a contract by a material misrepresentation then you can rescind the contract and/or sue for damages. The person concerned would have to prove on the balance of probabilities that: the misrepresentation was actually made, which, if it was only verbal and there were no independent witnesses will be problematic, the misrepresentation caused them to enter the contract. If the dealer were to deny everything, and it came down to a &quot;he said, she said&quot;, then, on the evidence, the person should lose. The facts are equally consistent with the buyer making an unprompted mistake as to the model of the car. Unfortunately, while most cases are compelling when you only have one side's story; when both sides get to have their say the facts become less easy to determine. Outside of misrepresentation, the person can complain to whatever government consumer protection agencies there are in Florida.
Given that you voluntarily turned the car over to the buyer, it isn't your car anymore. The correct procedure would be to file a civil case against the buyer for breach of contract, where he would have been required to turn over the pump or compensate you monetarily. You both violated the law and are subject to punishment. Forgery is a crime in California punishable by up to a year in county jail. Stealing a car is grand theft, which has a range of penalties from misdemeanor to up to 3 years prison, depending on your prior history and the circumstances. You can file a complaint with the police over the forgery, and it will inevitably be revealed that you stole his car. So you should call an attorney right away to try to get yourself out of this mess. Your main interest would be not getting prosecuted for grand theft, or at least minimizing the penalty. Assuming that he did indeed forge your signature (a signature on the title is required, and surely DMV would not issue a new title without a signature, but you don't indicate what evidence you have that he forged your signature), he could be motivated to cooperate – your respective attorneys can work out an equitable arrangement. The windshield issue will probably be central to the case. Did you crack the windshield after you struck the deal? Did he have an opportunity to inspect the car? Did you fail to disclose a material fact that affects the value of a car? If you replace the windshield, that could tilt the scales of justice in your favor. Get a lawyer and try to keep it out of the courts.