FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THIS POST
THIS INSURANCE CLAIM DENIAL DID NOT SIT WELL WITH JUDGE JUDY!
A Shot Driver, a Parked Truck, and a Denied Claim
Imagine your truck is parked.
Suddenly, it's hit by a car.
The driver claims he was shot.
Now, his insurance company refuses to pay.
That's the situation Travis Boone found himself in.
He brought his case to Judge Judy.
The Parties and the Dispute
Travis Boone is the plaintiff.
He is suing Marvin Baru, the defendant.
Mr. Boone's truck was hit by Mr. Baru's car.
Mr. Baru is a 24-year-old motorist.
The two men do not know each other.
The Defendant's Story: A Short Visit and a Shooting
Judge Judy asks Mr. Baru about the day of the accident.
It was April 7th.
Mr. Baru was visiting a friend.
He says he was on Main Street.
He does not recall the address.
He also does not want to mention his friend's name.
Mr. Baru arrived at his friend's apartment around 3:30.
He left approximately 4:00.
Judge Judy notes it was a short visit.
Mr. Baru confirms this.
He then states he was driving down the street.
He was driving past where Mr. Boone lives.
Then, someone shot him through his car window.
The Accident Details
Mr. Baru was driving a 2016 Honda Civic.
He confirms he had active insurance on that date.
Judge Judy clarifies the sequence of events.
Mr. Baru was shot in the arm or shoulder.
He lost control of his car.
Judge Judy asks if his car came to rest on Mr. Boone's truck.
Mr. Baru says no.
He states his car came to rest on a telephone pole.
He clarifies that he hit Mr. Boone's truck before the telephone pole.
Mr. Boone's truck was a 1996 Nissan pickup truck.
Judge Judy asks her bailiff, Bert, to look up the value of a 1996 Nissan.
Was the Truck Totaled?
Mr. Baru claims Mr. Boone's truck was not totaled.
He says he is not sure of the damage.
He believes it was not totaled.
Judge Judy asks Mr. Baru if he has photographs of the damage.
He confirms he has photographs and estimates.
He presents the photographs to Judge Judy.
The Insurance Company's Denial
While reviewing the photos, Judge Judy asks Mr. Boone about his claim.
Mr. Boone contacted Mr. Baru's insurance company.
The company is Liberty Mutual.
Mr. Boone contacted them numerous times.
They denied the claim the very first time.
Judge Judy asks for the basis of the denial.
Mr. Boone explains they put responsibility for the accident on the shooter.
Judge Judy finds this interesting.
She notes that Liberty Mutual insured Mr. Baru for any accident.
She asks if the shooter was caught.
Mr. Boone confirms the shooter was not caught.
Judge Judy remarks, "Oh, Liberty Mutual's not going to like this."
Judge Judy Challenges Liberty Mutual's Stance
Judge Judy asks if there is a letter from Liberty Mutual denying the claim.
She states that Liberty Mutual insures Mr. Baru.
They insure him for both liability and collision.
His insured vehicle caused damage to Mr. Boone's vehicle.
This fact is clear.
Mr. Baru agrees.
Judge Judy points out that Mr. Boone was not driving his truck.
He was sleeping or doing something else.
He was certainly not driving.
Therefore, Liberty Mutual cannot claim any contributory negligence.
Hypothetical Scenarios and Liability
Judge Judy explains her view to Mr. Baru.
Mr. Boone has already tried to deal with the insurance company.
Mr. Boone does not have collision coverage on his 20-year-old truck.
Mr. Baru had appropriate insurance.
Judge Judy states that someone must be responsible for the damage.
She acknowledges that Mr. Baru being shot was not intentional.
She then presents a hypothetical situation.
What if Mr. Baru had a brain aneurysm while driving?
He is a young man with no history of such an event.
It would be a freak occurrence.
If he hit Mr. Boone's truck and then killed three people, would Liberty Mutual be responsible?
Judge Judy answers, "Absolutely."
She offers another example.
If Mr. Baru had a heart attack while driving.
He hits a parked car and injures people.
Liability must rest somewhere.
It does not rest with people walking in the street.
If his car kills someone, they cannot say he had a cardiac attack.
The Proximate Cause Argument
Judge Judy addresses Liberty Mutual's argument.
They claim the proximate cause of the damage was the shooter.
Judge Judy disagrees.
She believes they are wrong.
She tells Mr. Baru he needs to take it up with them.
He needs to be proactive.
She suggests he change his insurance company.
She notes that there is an appeals process.
It can be frustrating.
However, the bottom line is clear.
Their insured car caused damage to someone else's property.
Their insured was driving it.
Perhaps Mr. Baru should have been able to maintain control.
Regardless, it was not the plaintiff's fault.
The Verdict
Judge Judy asks about the value of the truck.
Mr. Boone confirms he cannot drive his truck.
It is a '96 Nissan pickup.
Judge Judy rules in favor of the plaintiff.
She awards Mr. Boone $5,000.
She advises Mr. Baru to take this up with his insurance company.
Watch the Full Judge Judy Case Below
See how Judge Judy handles this unusual insurance claim.
Her reasoning is sharp.
Scroll down.
Press play.
FULL VIDEO
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE FULL VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Pv7EX2iJw
