“Coverage for Dummies” Case Reversed

The 7th annual “Coverage For Dummies,” appearing in the last issue of Coverage Opinions, included Auto Club Property Casualty Ins. Co. v. B.T. (W.D. Ky. June 29, 2014). The court held that no coverage was owed to a dad for this father of the year performance. His 8 year old son was playing with friends and wanted to get some sparklers out of the car. Dad used his keyless remote to open the door but did not follow his son to the car – nor check up on him for the next few hours. It turns out that his son didn’t retrieve just sparklers from the car (as if that would have been OK) but bottle rockets too. You can see where this is going. One of the kids lit a bottle rocket that hit another in the eye. Coverage for dad denied based on the criminal act exclusion. Nobody will confuse this guy for Ward Cleaver.

Well, it turns out that, on the same day that “Dummies” was published (Jan. 12), the Sixth Circuit reversed Auto Club Property Casualty Ins. Co. v. B.T. What are the odds of that? The court didn’t reversed the dumminess aspect, of course. But it did conclude that summary judgment for the insurer, holding that no coverage was owed, was in error. Just thought I’d mention this.