Ung is found NOT GUILTY

[GunLawyer001]

Wasn't Ung an adult when this happened, and living somewhere other than his parents, and the incident occurred some where other than his parent's property. Not sure I'm understanding how his parent's HO insurance should even be involved in this.

That should be tossed.

Depends on the definitions in the policy. From the article, it looks like the issue was whether the shooting was excluded as an "intentional act", not whether he was in insured.

Plenty of people spend 8-9 months per year away from home, but their bedroom is still there, they vote at home, their parents claim them as a dependent. It doesn't strike me as unusual.

I hope that Gerald hit Eddie with a large counterclaim, for causing the entire episode. But for Eddie pursuing and striking Gerald, Gerald would have finished his 3rd year in law school, saved the costs of a trial, been spared the horror of months of not knowing whether he was going to jail for decades, and kept his reputation intact.

That's worth a few bucks, right there.

[ChuckS]

.... From the article, it looks like the issue was whether the shooting was excluded as an "intentional act", ...

I hope that Gerald hit Eddie with a large counterclaim, for causing the entire episode. But for Eddie pursuing and striking Gerald, Gerald would have finished his 3rd year in law school, saved the costs of a trial, been spared the horror of months of not knowing whether he was going to jail for decades, and kept his reputation intact.

That's worth a few bucks, right there.

Two questions.

How unusual is it that the ruling was that self defense is not an "intentional act?" Per most forum discussions, including some that included lawyers, it is posed that insurance won't cover self defense either criminal or civil suit. This goes against those conclusions. (You get what you pay for on the internet). Did it mention which the insurance company was involved?

If Ung does sue, is there any chance that Eddie's parents' insurance would cough up? I'm guessing no: no coverage for criminal acts.

P.S.
Thanks for the follow-up.

[GunLawyer001]

Two questions.

How unusual is it that the ruling was that self defense is not an "intentional act?" Per most forum discussions, including some that included lawyers, it is posed that insurance won't cover self defense either criminal or civil suit. This goes against those conclusions. (You get what you pay for on the internet). Did it mention which the insurance company was involved?

If Ung does sue, is there any chance that Eddie's parents' insurance would cough up? I'm guessing no: no coverage for criminal acts.

P.S.
Thanks for the follow-up.

I just skimmed the case where the court determined that Gerald's insurance has to defend, but I think they based it on Eddie's complaint, which alleged both intentional and negligent claims.

Perhaps if Eddie dropped the negligence counts, the carrier would be released.

I have no idea whether hypothetical counterclaims would be covered by hypothetical insurance policies held by the DiDonato family.

[bill gray]

So, the way Eddie's lawyers phrased the complaint, "Ung committed both intentional AND unintentional acts'" roped in Ung's parents' insurance company to defend? So, the DiDonatos are facing a large insurance company's team of tigers who will ferociously defend Ung up to the limits of the policy plus any umbrella coverage (sold in multiples of a million dollars)? I am sure DiDonato Sr. is saying some unkind things to his son's lawyers. If his son's lawyers are DiDonato Sr's own law partners that will make for some interesting tensions at work. His son could have been facing a much smaller and less intimidating defense team. Once DiDonato has said there are unintentional acts involved, can he unring that bell?
By the way, does this open the way for a retroactive insurance claim by Ung for reimbursement of his criminal trial defense costs? Ung suffered "shock, mental anguish or mental injury resulting from the incident" (bodily injury as defined by my insurance company) plus "libel, slander and defamation of character" (personal injury). Can the DiDonato sister be thrown in as a target based on her post? Will the DiDonatos ask another stupid question; "Who 'ya gonna sue?"

[LordTobias]

Small world. A female customer of mine -- I forget how we got onto the issue -- mentioned this case to me in passing last week. She's a friend of the guy.

Glad to see he was found not guilty.

Question for GunLawyer: I thought Castle Doctrine precluded any possible civil suits in the event you are absolved of any criminal activity? If that is so, did this case occur before Castle Doctrine was passed in PA? If it occurred before, is the law retroactive in serving cases that are potentially up for civil suit such as this?

Thanks in advance!

[GunLawyer001]

Small world. A female customer of mine -- I forget how we got onto the issue -- mentioned this case to me in passing last week. She's a friend of the guy.

Glad to see he was found not guilty.

Question for GunLawyer: I thought Castle Doctrine precluded any possible civil suits in the event you are absolved of any criminal activity? If that is so, did this case occur before Castle Doctrine was passed in PA? If it occurred before, is the law retroactive in serving cases that are potentially up for civil suit such as this?

Thanks in advance!

The civil immunity amendment was effective Aug. 29, 2011.

[LordTobias]

Does that work retroactively, then?

In other words, if a civil suit is pending or not yet filed does a person who is acquitted have immunity from such cases, even if the date of the shooting occurred before the law was passed? Sorry for so many questions, and thanks for your answers, GunLawyer.

[51158]

Does that work retroactively, then?

In other words, if a civil suit is pending or not yet filed does a person who is acquitted have immunity from such cases, even if the date of the shooting occurred before the law was passed? Sorry for so many questions, and thanks for your answers, GunLawyer.

I would think this answers your question..

from pa constitution Link

§ 17. Ex post facto laws; impairment of contracts. No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making irrevocable any grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed.

There's also a line stating same in the US constitution, Not that
it's followed much..

I hope GL confirms my interpretation..

[dazeeman]

Kinda unfortunate that a little man with a gun got away with it.....

[streaker69]

Kinda unfortunate that a little man with a gun got away with it.....

Care to give us an in depth analysis as to why you think Ung wasn't in the right for defending himself?