Dotts v. Taressa J.A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “an intentional tort exclusion in a motor vehicle liability insurance policy is precluded under our Safety Responsibility Law up to the minimum insurance coverage required therein. The policy exclusion will operate as to any amount above the statutory minimum.”
• stating that “[a]s a consequence of this elevated duty [of common carriers], courts generally hold that assaults made by employees on passengers arise out of the use or operation of the vehicle”
• stating that insurers need not “provide any coverage” for “any person . . . specifically excluded from coverage under the provisions of a motor vehicle liability policy”
• concluding intentional tort exclusion in a motor vehicle liability insurance policy is precluded under Safety Responsibility law up to the minimum coverage required, but policy exclusion will operate as to any amount above the statutory minimum
• observing that Tort Claims Act defines “political subdivision” for purposes of that Act, but that where the phrase “political subdivision” is undefined, e.g., the Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law, the Court “resort[s] to our case law interpretation of the term”
• because of elevated duty of care owed to passengers by common carriers, assault of passenger by employee would be construed as arising out of use of vehicle

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).