HB 1378 – Insurance coverage exclusion for intoxication

Comments

1. Branden Robinson says

   February 13, 2007 at 19:33 -05006

   Awesome — there’s no exlcusion for involuntary intoxication of the insured.

   So when a date rapist hits a chick up with Rohypnol, the insurance company doesn’t have to cover the cost of her hospital treatment (including rape kit), or any injuries she sustains while driving herself to the hospital in her dazed state.

   Rep. Van Haaften: DUMBASS

   Reply

2. Doug says

   February 13, 2007 at 19:58 -05006

   I think you have it reversed Branden. As I read it, Rep. Van Haaften’s bill prohibits the insurance company from excluding injuries caused during intoxication.

   Reply

3. Branden Robinson says

   February 14, 2007 at 2:21 -05006

   Doug,

   Eh?

   (goes off to re-read the bolded part)

   Sec. 28. A policy of accident and sickness insurance that:
   (1) is issued on an individual, a group, a blanket, or a franchise basis; and
   (2) provides coverage for hospital, medical, or surgical expenses;
   may not contain a provision excluding or limiting the insurer’s liability under the policy for a loss sustained or contracted in consequence of an insured’s intoxication or use of a narcotic.
   SOURCE: ; (07)IN1378.1.3. –> SECTION 3. [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2007] IC 27-8-5-3, as amended by this act, and IC 27-8-5-28, as added by this act, apply to a policy of accident and sickness insurance that is issued, delivered, amended, or renewed after June 30, 2007.

   D’oh! Wow. I really did go off and read the text before shooting my mouth off, but apparently the shit-colored glasses I wear are more powerful than I gave ’em credit for.

   Thanks for the correction, Doug. Yeah, I can get behind this.

   Branden Robinson: DUMBASS
   Rep. Van Haaften: MY APOLOGIES
   Rep. Van Haaften: YOU GO, DUDE

   Reply