I’ve written a lot about insurance coverage. It typically only applies to negligent (not intentional) acts.
The rule doesn’t make sense on a conceptual level. After all, the UIM carrier “stands in the shoes” of the at-fault driver. It’s as if the UIM carrier is providing insurance to the at-fault driver. But in this case the at-fault driver acted intentionally. Therefore, there should not be coverage. But a liberal insurance commissioner (bless her soul) and some of her political allies were able to force a square peg in a round hole.
Even though it doesn’t make sense, it’s a good rule to know. While it lasts, we’re definitely going to roll with it.