“Connecticut’s second-highest court ruled Monday that a man facing charges of arson of his East Lyme beach house can sue the home’s insurer for emotional distress because of the way the insurer investigated the fire.” [Hartford Courant]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
{ 1 comment }
Shenkman claims that the insurer didn’t conduct an investigation because of his arrest on May 10, 2007, on arson charges, and that the insurer believed Tyler, who says that Shenkman burned down the house, Gettinger said.
Just because you are arrested for arson is no reason why the insurance company shouldn’t take your claim seriously. Right!!!!
What I find to be strange is that this ruling was made in Connecticut, the “Insurance Capitol” of the country.
Comments on this entry are closed.