Sansalone v Wawanesa

wilsonchan18wilsonchan18
in Land.Cases

Hi,

The Battlecard says the Minority Reason for supporting having duty to defend says:
"Act was Intentional BUT Injury was not, defendant had invalid belief of consent".

If the Act is intentional, should the Insurer still help to defend?
I cannot get quite the above minority reason. Can anyone helpes?

Thanks and Warm Regards,
Wilson

Comments

  • Staff-T1Staff-T1
    edited April 2022

    Hi,

    To be honest, for the legal cases it's all mainly lawyer speak so you just have to memorize it as is ~ There's no value added in trying to understand why nor will examiners ever ask this specific question in an exam

  • bicbicbicbic

    Hi,
    Regarding this case, why does homeowner insurance get involved in the bus drivers' behaviour? shouldn't the bus drivers sue their professional liability insurer? The injuries didn't happen at their homes but on the buses.

    Thanks,
    Nancy

  • grahamgraham

    The final decision was that the sexual act was not covered by the homeowner's policy anyway. The plaintiff (or their lawyer) may simply have been looking for "deep pockets" and the homeowner's policy may have been their best option even though it doesn't really fit with the situation. I suppose the plaintiff could still have taken the bus drivers to civil court (which they may have done - I don't know) but that would no longer involve the insurance company so it wouldn't be relevant for us anymore.

  • bicbicbicbic

    thanks Graham

Sign In or Register to comment.