Discussing legal developments in the Virgin Islands in the areas of Insurance Law, Employment Law, Personal Injury and Toxic Tort.
DRUNK CHILD DRIVERS? Maybe, Maybe Not.
This case clarifies the Virgin Islands standards regarding insurance policy endorsement exclusions and compulsory liability policies.
The Court found that the insurance contract between Inter-Ocean and Joseph was a compulsory liability policy to the extent of the mandatory minimum liability coverage set forth in §703. Accordingly, drivers like Sheldon Joseph, who operate an insured vehicle with permission from the named insured, must be extended auto insurance for the compulsory limits regardless of policy exclusions.
The court went so far as to say that endorsements excluding any driver or operator under the age of twenty-five from coverage conflict with the statutory omnibus clause found in 20 V.I.C. § 701, et seq. and are invalid to the extent of the statutory minimum liability coverage.
(The court also noted that the insurance company has no right to subrogate against its insured)
One could also argue that because the Court found the compulsory liability policy statute supersedes the under twenty-five exclusion, it will supersede all exclusions (assuming permissive use). Of course the Court might take a different view regarding exclusions for illegal behavior. However, if the policy behind this decision is to ensure the minimum liability coverage of all injured parties in an accident, then it is not a stretch to say that a policy must cover even individuals injured by drunk drivers or child drivers (or perhaps drunk child drivers).
HOW MATHEMATICALLY INCLINED IS YOUR JURY? A Non-Formula for Disaster.
In this case the Supreme Court holds that Plaintiffs need no reduce damages to present value.
ANALYSIS COMING SOON