Legal Opinion
Richard Frederking v. Cincinnati Insurance Company
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided July 2, 2019No. 18-50536PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JAMES C. HO, Circuit Judge:
Only an insurance company could come up with the policy interpretation advanced here. Cincinnati Insurance Company theorizes that its automobile policies do not cover injuries caused by drunk driving collisions, because such collisions are not "accidents." Its logic is this: intentional acts are not accidents, and drunk drivers make the intentional choice to drink and then drive.
This theory of interpretation conflicts with the plain meaning and common usage of the word "accident"-and defies the understanding and expectation of everyone who drives a car. Not…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. CowanTexas Supreme Court · 1997
- New Prime Inc. v. OliveiraSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
- Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance v. GriffinTexas Supreme Court · 1997
- Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.Texas Supreme Court · 2007
- Argonaut Southwest Insurance Company v. MaupinTexas Supreme Court · 1973
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Sambrano v. United AirlinesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2022
- Air Evac EMS v. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2021
- Cincinnati Insurance Company v. DievernichDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2021
- Encompass Indemnity Company v. SteeleDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2022
- Equistar Chemicals, L.P. v. Indeck Power Equipment CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2021
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.