In the case of New Hampshire Indem. Co. v. Scott, 910 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (M.D. Fla. 2012), the Court ruled consistently with Florida insurance law, New Hampshire Indem. Co. v. Scott, 910 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1347 (M.D. Fla. 2012), and with the language of the insurance policy in the case before it, New Hampshire Indem. Co. v. Scott, 910 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1342 (M.D. Fla. 2012), to hold that the insured driver of a two-ton truck who drove up to a pedestrian, and pulled the truck alongside her, and then proceeded to snatch the pedestrian's purse as a result of which she was injured, was excluded from coverage because the insured driver intended to cause the injuries as a matter of law applied to these facts and allegations.
More concisely, the Court granted the insurance company's motion for summary judgment and summarized its holding in that case as follows:
Neither the policy language, nor public policy, nor precedent, nor prudence tolerates the notion that an “auto accident” includes Scott's criminal attack and that the result of an attack with a two-ton truck (or the operation of a “motor vehicle as a means to commit a robbery by sudden snatching”) is not “intentional.”
New Hampshire Indem. Co. v. Scott, 910 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1349-50 (M.D. Fla. 2012).
Please Read The Disclaimer.