After the tragic loss of a daughter in an auto accident, a lawsuit was filed by the parents. The other driver was drunk and was at fault. Rather than the driver, the aggrieved parents’ target was the bar from which the inebriated driver left prior to the collision.

The bar held a general liability insurance policy. Its insurer had to respond to the lawsuit where the deceased’s parents argued that the bar was negligent in not preventing their patron from leaving.

Click below for additional details on the dispute. How well did the insurer address the parents’ attempt to base fault on how the customer was handled rather than on the driver’s inebriation?

The parents made two distinct moves in pursuit of damages for the death of their child. First, they sued the bar rather than the impaired driver. Second, they argued that the cause of the accident was the bar staff failing to prevent their customer from operating his car when incapable of doing so safely.

The first action may have been due to the driver not having their own insurance or the coverage may have been insufficient. The second action may have been in order to avoid the language in the bar’s liability policy which contained a clear exclusion for any losses involving serving alcohol.

Click here for a brief discussion of the relationship between General Liability coverage and the exposure represented by servicing alcoholic beverages to the public. It is from the Commercial Casualty section of PF&M found in Advantage Plus.

Accidents happen and they often result in injury to others and/or damage to another party’s property (including loss of use to such property). Liability insurance protection depends upon whether one can be shown to be responsible for causing harm or damage. Another term for this is negligence, creating loss to others because of one’s direct actions.

Our featured case revolves around an attempt to hold a vicarious party financially responsible for a serious, fatal loss. Businesses that serve alcohol or which serve alcohol as part of events are frequently sued for practices that foreseeably create danger. However, a general liability policy is not designed to handle special, indirect negligence. Special coverage called liquor liability is intended to respond to loss that is strongly tied to losses created by drunk customers or event attendees.

Click here for information on the concept of negligence. It is from Gordis on Insurance found in Advantage Plus.

Nothing can truly make up for tragedy for a loved one’s loss. But there are often substantial expenses families have to face when such losses occur, so it is important to look for sources to repay them. Whatever their motivation, the argument pursued by the grieving parents failed. The plain language of the general liability policy that was in force during the accident had no obligation to either defend the bar or respond to the fatal accident.

It could be that all the litigants ended up in a poorer situation. The parents may have gone on to pursue litigation against the bar. However, even if a judgment were won, it’s unlikely that compensation would be sufficient absent a relevant insurance policy. The option may also be opened to sue the driver directly but, again, the course the parent chose to travel was possibly due to non-existent or insufficient coverage from that source.

The public is served best by both individuals and businesses stepping up and securing appropriate types and amount of liability protection.

Click here for an excerpt from a product that assists in describing different lines of business and entities that provide markets to secure needed coverage. It is from Insurance Marketplace found in Advantage Plus.