Frederking v. Cincinnati Insurance Co.
The Court criticized the insurer's claim that an "accident" could not exist following a driver's intentional decision to drink and then drive an automobile, noting that, taken to its logical conclusion, any act by an insured that causes a distraction to driving -- eating, applying makeup, etc. -- would preclude coverage under a standard automobile liability policy.
automobile liability insurance policy, accident, highly probable, natural and expected result
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login