Do GY Billboards void your insurance?

[Dimis]

Originally Posted by patrickt

A perfect example of a judicial inclination to extend coverage where it probably doesn't belong, not to restrict it from where it does.

Sorry Patrick, you've concussed me....
To extend on your comment above in retort to what Pete stated - Are you suggesting that insurances will pay out a policy holder even if they're criminally liable or at fault?

This is not my understanding of how insurance works.

I've a real reluctance to drive billboards bc I don't want the headaches of policy makers should the worst happen. Your position on this makes me feel like I should not care less about using them, but deep down I just can't bring myself to believe that.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Dimis

Sorry Patrick, you've concussed me....
To extend on your comment above in retort to what Pete stated - Are you suggesting that insurances will pay out a policy holder even if they're criminally liable or at fault?

Of course they will, that's what you're paying for. Now, if you intentionally run someone over with your car, that will be excluded. But just because you broke the law (speeding, drunk driving), or were at fault (sound asleep when you blew through that red light), that's not going to negate your coverage. There are compelling societal reasons for not excluding stuff like this (and even if it was excluded all you would really be doing is shifting the cost of the risk).

Edit -- Now if you really meant to say "if the other guy is criminally liable or at fault," and not you, the policyholder, then I'll revise my answer.