Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Insurance Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates insurer coverage for intentional acts; S.B.49 circled for rewrite
Summary
Senate debate on S.B.49 focused on whether insurers may deny liability coverage when the insured intended an act that caused damage. Senators questioned scope for third‑party victims and whether the bill would expand or clarify coverage; sponsors withdrew a floor amendment and the bill was circled for redrafting.
SALT LAKE CITY — Senators spent part of the Feb. 2, 2005 floor session questioning S.B.49, a measure to clarify when motor vehicle liability insurers may deny coverage for acts intended by the insured.
Sponsor Senator Eastman said the bill narrows insurer denial of liability coverage to cases where the insured intended the resulting property damage, bodily injury or death — not to ordinary intentional driving acts that did not intend harm. He used examples such as an intentional criminal act distinct from negligent speeding.
Several senators sought specifics. Senator Hilliard asked whether ordinary traffic infractions or aggressive driving could result in insurers denying coverage; Senator Matson raised potential road‑rage scenarios and litigation consequences. Senator Bell observed that intentional torts are typically an exclusion in auto policies and urged clarity about how uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages would apply.
Eastman withdrew a suggested floor amendment pending redraft, saying staff should prepare clearer language. The Senate voted to circle the bill, postponing further action until the sponsor can provide revised drafting clarifications.
Status: S.B.49 was circled on the floor for redrafting; sponsors indicated they would return with written amendments prior to a third‑reading attempt.
