Do High-Speed Chases Void Auto Insurance?

December 4, 2008
If someone involved in a high-speed chase crashes their vehicle, are they covered by their auto insurance policy?

The Texas Supreme Court is currently debating this question. The court will decide if an auto insurance company should pay medical costs for a boy who was injured in a collision with a driver fleeing police.

In 1999, Richard Gibbons was speeding away from law enforcement officers in San Marcos, Texas, when he smashed his pickup truck into Greg and Maribel Tanner's vehicle at an intersection. The wreck left their son, 7-year-old Roney Tanner, in a coma for a week, hospitalized for a month, and in physical therapy for the next five years.

The Tanner family had expected Gibbons' auto insurance policy, which covered up to $300,000 in damages, to pay for their son's medical bills--but they were wrong. The company refuses to pay, claiming Gibbons violated his auto insurance policy when he led police on a high-speed pursuit exceeding 100 mph against oncoming traffic.

Thus far, the courts have sided with the auto insurance company. The policy in question was purchased in Ohio, where state law voids coverage for "willful acts" of reckless driving that could result in crashes.

The Tanners' lawyer argues that reckless driving is not enough to void an auto insurance policy. He maintains there was no "intentional" harm caused to the Tanners, as police reported that Gibbons slammed on his brakes before impact to avoid the crash.

So who's at fault? It can't be the Tanner family. They were driving safely on a quiet road surrounded by farmland, following local traffic laws. Why should they be stuck with colossal medical bills because of someone else's stupidity and carelessness?

On the other hand, the auto insurance company shouldn't be held liable, either. After all, it's not the company's fault that Gibbons decided to evade police and drive recklessly through town.

For the sake of human compassion--or at the very least, good PR--the company should offer to help the Tanners with medical costs. But with the nation now officially in a recession, finances are tight, and the case for the Tanner family doesn't look good.

The Texas Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision next year