Re: 1969 Malibu Sports Sedan
The way they talk that out is called the "but for" test and I would say but for both cars we would have not been damaged.
Liability policies all have exclusions- if there is a crime and the car is in use the insurance clicks-off the moment of the crime and clicks back on after. In that case they would have a policy that was excluded from covering the specific moment our damages occurred.
Cases have shown over and over that innocent third-party property damage claims are twisty-turny but two ideas clarify the cause- one is "independent sufficient cause" and the other is "concurrent actual cause".
There is a case where it was found that when both parties involved have insurance and some fault they split it. It is not supposed to be a mystery and it is poor relations.
There is a duty to settle and USAA found a brief dodge due to the unknown suspect vehicle without a defense to their allegation.
Another way to look at it is the error- is it possible to say the bullet is the cause of our property damage? Did the bullet do all the damage? USAA admits liability in a round-about way saying that even though his car is what hit our property, due to the "extenuating circumstance" he wouldn't . To me this is interesting because USAA says due to the extenuating circumstance he would not have any liability, using "but for" the bullet.
No bullet, liability....bullet, no liability...this does say but for the bullet our property would not be damaged.
So what is clear is it took one car for there to be liability, and two cars means neither car is liable to us? The answer is it is what it is and their two cars actions together caused our loss.
USAA knows our state is a tort state and that means we have to define the relationship between the parties. We in an action would be called the claimant and the boy would be called the tortfeasor.
The boy would be claimant and the shooters would be the tortfeasor. Now we know the parties what led up to this?
"...stuck wit' stock, for now..."