Liability of Non-Manufacturing Seller in Automotive Products Liability Cases

A plaintiff in an automotive products liability case against the manufacturer or seller of a motor vehicle generally has to prove that the vehicle at the time of sale contained a defect that created an unreasonable risk of death, personal injury, or property damage when the vehicle was used for its intended purpose and that the defect caused an accident or similar incident, such as a vehicle fire, that resulted in the damage or loss for which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages. Under traditional legal principles, any party involved in the chain of transactions leading up to the retail sale of the vehicle, including the dealer who sold the car or truck, could be held liable in such a case. Motor vehicle dealers, like any party against whom a legal action is brought, would like to limit their potential liability to matters for which they can be shown to have a direct and undeniable responsibility.

Automobile Insurance Policies: Refusals to Insure

An automobile insurance company has the right to choose whom it will insure. If an applicant for automobile insurance is deemed to be a bad risk, the insurance company can refuse to issue an insurance policy. Ordinarily, the insurance company does not have to give the applicant a reason for refusing to insure him or her. However, insurance companies must act in good faith in their dealings with insureds and applicants. Although an insurance company can refuse to insure someone, they cannot refuse to insure a person for an improper reason. The same applies to the cancellation of an insurance policy.

Conflict of Laws Issues in Motor Vehicle Insurance Disputes

Motor vehicles, by the nature of their mobility, freely move among the states. Accidents can occur in an insured's home state or another state. The laws of the states can differ on how they interpret the terms of an insurance policy. Which law should be applied is the subject of rules for conflict-of-laws or choice-of-laws decisions.

Comparative Fault in Automotive Products Liability Cases

Tort law is the branch of the legal system that deals with cases in which an individual or other legally recognized entity, such as a corporation or governmental unit, seeks to recover damages from another person for a private injury or wrong not arising out of a contractual relationship. Tort actions are often based on the concept of negligence, which the law generally defines in such a context as the failure to meet the standard of care required to avoid subjecting another to unreasonable risk of injury. Under traditional tort law principles, if the plaintiff in such a case was found to have been guilty of what is called contributory negligence, which is generally defined as a failure to use due care that contributes to the plaintiff's own injury, the plaintiff would be barred from recovering any damages from the defendant. More recently, many courts have adopted a doctrine called comparative fault or comparative negligence in deciding such cases.

Exclusions for Intentional Acts in Motorist Insurance

State legislatures have authorized motorist insurance companies to exclude coverage, including uninsured motorist coverage, for any damages from an intentional act in their policies. Public policy prohibits insurance coverage for intentional acts because a person should pay for his or her intentional injury to another person. Further, the courts have held that injuries caused by an intentional act are not caused by "accident."