Posted: 09 Feb 2007 02:05 Post Subject:
That is correct.
It's a question of legal liability and negligence. That is, a person has to have been found negligent in the operation of their vehicle. If the driver had _no_ idea he/she was going to or could have had a heart attack then they did nothing wrong. Therefore they are not liable. However, if the person was at all aware of their condition, then they probably would be held liable. While it does happen, most people just don't have heart attacks out of the blue. They usually have a preexisting condition or are on some type of medication. Remember, some medications have side effects that can cause a heart attack. In that case, the person should know the side effects and as such, knew they could have had a heart attack. Liability then exists.
So it's difficult not to be negligent in suffering a heart attack (or the like) and causing an accident. Basically, if there is _any_ indication that the person knew, or should have known, they _may_ suffer from this condition, then the insurance usually (should) accept liability.
Posted: 09 Feb 2007 05:26 Post Subject: Yes its true
I think it depends on the type of insurance package one has.If the package is only third party,then it means insurance will pay only for the other person injured by the driver but only on condition that the cause of accident is not by natural causes which may include heartattack,earthquake,war and many others.But if it is a comprehensive package,then it means the insurance may pay for both drivers if accident not by natural causes.
Posted: 10 Feb 2007 11:03 Post Subject:
Who is liable would not change based on the type of policy.