I’ve written a lot about insurance coverage. It typically only applies to negligent (not intentional) acts.
But UIM (uninsured motorist or under-insured motorist) insurance stands as an unusual exception. Victims of road rage in Washington can make claims under their own UIM policies.
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.
The Legal Examiner and our Affiliate Network strive to be the place you look to for news, context, and more, wherever your life intersects with the law.
Comments for this article are closed.