No, it's not covered under the auto insurance policy of one of the perpetrators (as arising "directly or indirectly" from the use of an automobile), per Canada's supreme court, reversing a lower court. The supposed trigger for coverage found by the lower court was that one of the miscreants "transported rocks to the overpass in the back of his truck". In a separate case, the high court also ruled that a hunting accident is not brought within the terms of auto insurance coverage just because the hunter's headlights were illuminating possible game (which turned out to be a fellow hunter). PoL contributor David Rossmiller has details.
Dropping boulder from overpass onto passing car
Related Entries:
- Update on California foreign policy efforts
- Global warming lawsuits and insurance
- And this is why your Michigan auto insurance is so expensive: Boertmann v. Cincinnati Insurance
- Fogel v. Farmers Group: CCAF challenges $90m fee in claims-made settlement
- Update: good result in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions
- Insurers and Toyota sudden acceleration
- Gameshow justice: Godwin v. Electrolux Home Prods.
- Kabateck Brown Kellner discovers the flaw of cy pres
- Anti-reform measure in North Carolina
- Around the web, February 1
- Around the web, January 13
- Top ten lists
- Around the web, August 30
- "Frivolous Claim: The Need For Bad Faith Legislation"
- Around the web, August 4
![]() |
Rafael Mangual Project Manager, Legal Policy rmangual@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
Katherine Lazarski Manhattan Institute klazarski@manhattan-institute.org |