So that talking point about gun liability insurance not insuring illegal acts...

[better]

41. Please excuse my layman's knowledge of the law, but can you clarify for me...

The way I intuitively read this, it appears to me to bar insurance policies insuring or indemnifying the policyholder against criminal penalties, and that part makes perfect sense to me. Where I get caught up is where it applies to liability. Because again, the liability insurance isn't there to ensure that the person at fault suffers no losses. It's there to ensure that the victims of the person at fault can be made at least somewhat whole, whether or not the person at fault has any assets against which to make claims. Or at least that is what I make of carrying liability insurance being mandatory, not optional. Am I mistaken about that?

By all means, the insurance company should in the case of intentional acts have recourse to recoup their expenses from the policyholder, but if we have ordained that the victims of automobile accidents are entitled to be covered at least to a minimum standard by the insurance policy of the driver at fault, which would seem to be the case since carrying liability insurance is mandatory, then it makes no sense to me for the victim to only be entitled to that minimum coverage if they weren't intended to be the victim.

It makes perfect sense for the offender not to benefit from a crime being insured, but that can be achieved without depriving the victim of coverage intended to benefit them, not the offender. That very literally allows a perpetrator to add financial insult to injury. Yeah, they'll probably be catching a charge if it was intentional, but their victim is then injured AND denied coverage to which they are ostensibly legally entitled.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I see a huge problem there.