You saw what I saw. You tell me.

The Empty Half Tonnists are convinced of death, while the Full Half Tonnists believe it was a dummy and a brick when the camera shot changed right before launch.

Since the rear wheels accelerating brings the rear end down, wouldn't the front wheels accelerating bring the front end down?

How does all four wheels spinning faster make the nose rise?

Okay bro. I'm not going to whip out my credentials. BUT I've seen dumber stuff and more predictable stuff get paid.

My man, standard or preferred insurance policies will pay out if someone gets in a car drunk and plows into three other cars, hell 10 or 20 cars... "excessively reckless" oh yes, that is excessively reckless, but not necessarily intended.

While you're correct that there's a "expected or intended injury exclusion" in most policies, it has been tried in courts.

The "expected or intended injury exclusion" in liability insurance means coverage doesn't apply to bodily injury or property damage the insured expected or intended to happen, focusing on the insured's subjective state of mind and the resulting harm, not just the act itself. It's a standard clause preventing coverage for intentional wrongdoing, but courts often clarify it doesn't cover harm that's a substantially certain consequence of an intentional act, or unintended harm from a privileged act like self-defense, requiring specific intent or high probability of harm to trigger the exclusion.

Focus on Harm, Not Just Act: The exclusion applies to the injury or damage being expected/intended, not just the underlying action.

It's judged from the insured's perspective (what they expected/intended), using a subjective standard, not what a "reasonable person" would expect.

"Substantially Certain" Standard: An injury is "expected" if the insured knew or believed it was substantially certain to occur, not just foreseeable.

Excludes "Intentional Torts": It prevents insurance from paying for deliberate harm (like assault, battery). Doesn't Bar Self-Defense: Generally, harm from reasonable force used in self-defense isn't excluded, as the intent wasn't to cause unlawful harm.

Example Intentional Act, Unintended Harm: If someone punches another person (intending a punch) but the victim suffers a severe, unexpected brain injury, courts often find coverage because the severe injury wasn't intended or substantially certain, though the act was intentional. High Probability of Harm: If someone fires a gun into a crowd (intending to shoot someone), any injury to a bystander might be covered as "expected" or "intended" because causing some injury was highly likely, even if a specific person wasn't targeted.

The guy intended to jump the truck... a reasonable person could say that a wreck was foreseeable... but it wasn't necessarily the intention.

[deleted]