79

Overview Versions Help

Here you can see all page revisions and compare the changes have been made in each revision. Left column shows the page title and transcription in the selected revision, right column shows what have been changed. Unchanged text is highlighted in white, deleted text is ~~highlighted in red~~, and inserted text is highlighted in green color.

4 revisions	UVA Law Library at Oct 07, 2022 06:03 PM	Compared with
Oct 07, 2022 UVA Law Library Oct 06, 2022 laureneoneil Sep 25, 2022 asr5dd Sep 07, 2022 UVA Law Library	79 WAS THERE AN "ACCIDENT"? Ins. (58) Farm Bureau Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hamner (1949) #1 ID crim. convicted of int. harming some third parties. / #2 Third parties have recovered civil judgments on grounds of negligent harm. Now, IR of ID brings suit to get dec. judgment that IR not liable to third parties 1) If ID inflicted intentional harm, IR not liable — because a) pol. seems to exclude this spec. — assault & battery clause. b) Pub. pol. against liability for intentional misconduct. {∴ Was there an accident? Answer to {this question depends on whether there was * {accident form the pt. of view of ID. {LOOK ONLY AT STANDPOINT OF INSURED Effect of R/J effect of #2 alone in establishing ID's negligence. Held: No R/J effect. 1) No duty to defend by IR in that suit. At least the issue of the duty to defend was not litigated, since only suit for negligence. All that parties chose to sue for. (REAL 2) Conflict of interest between IR & ID. Would → n't be fair since it would be to their ad- REASON) vantage to get ID nailed for intentional act. ∴ No R/J on IR. * If. comp. ins. suit, probably wouldn't take this view.	79 WAS THERE AN "ACCIDENT"? Ins. (58) Farm Bureau Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hammer (1949) #1 ID crim. convicted of int. harming some third parties. / #2 Third parties have recovered civil judgments on grounds of negligent harm. Now, IR of ID brings suit to get dec. judgment that IR not liable to third parties 1) If ID inflicted intentional harm, IR not liable — because a) pol. seems to exclude this spec. — assault & battery clause. b) Pub. pol. against liability for intentional misconduct. {∴ Was there an accident? Answer to {this question depends on whether there was * {accident form the pt. of view of ID. {LOOK ONLY AT STANDPOINT OF INSURED Effect of R/J effect of #2 alone in establishing ID's negligence. Held: No R/J effect. 1) No duty to defend by IR in that suit. At least the issue of the duty to defend was not litigated, since only suit for negligence. All that parties chose to sue for. (REAL 2) Conflict of interest between IR & ID. Would- → n't be fair since it would be to their ad- REASON) vantage to get ID nailed for intentional act. ∴ No R/J on IR. * If. comp. ins. suit, probably wouldn't take this view.

79

4 revisions

79

79