www.rollingstone.com
Twitter Pro tip. Create a “politics” list and add him along with anyone else that does not deserve a follow to that. That way you can be cognizant of what the buffoon is tweeting. It also keeps his shit out of your main feed because who wants that when you are just trying to see everyone’s reaction to Gigi Good getting robbed during RuPaul’s Drag Race finale last night.
“what was a 15 yo girl doing at a protest” “stay out of the street” “he was protecting himself”
In my shitty hometown last night a man drove his suv into a crowd of protesters and struck a 15 yo girl. Luckily nobody was seriously injured. I accidentally clicked a link to a Facebook post from a local news page and most of the comments were defending this guy
www.google.com
The answer to your question though is yes, he most definitely did.
That is not wholly accurate, each company offers different policies and excludes different forms of damage. Typically acts of war are excluded (which terrorism may fall under but I digress) If they carry a Comprehensive Auto policy it would most likely cover vandalism which these act would most likely fall under (again, every insurer is different so it would be hard to paint with a broad brush). I would say if these automobile owners carried Comp coverage their damage may be covered. they would still unfortunately likely be on the hook for their deductible unless the police were able to arrest the guilty party then it is possible the Insurer may be able to recoup the cost of the deductible via subrogation From the guilty parties (super unlikely). The bigger issue would be most people carry the minimum state required insurance which is typically Liability only and Liability insurance only cover bodily injury and property damage that the insurer is responsible for. So while you are right that most of these vehicle owners won’t be compensated by their insurance it is more to do with the fact that most people don’t purchase policies to cover damages to their own property than due to some sort of riot or terrorism loophole.
www.vice.com
MA has some of the most restrictive Auto Insurance requirements in the country. Lots of insurance companies don’t even sell auto in MA because of it. As I said, Terrorism would likely be considered an exclusion by most insurers however the examples you note are different than someone vandalizing a car, if that was accurate then what would stop Ins Companies from claiming a Terrorism exclusion when dumb kids shoot out Car windows in a neighborhood with a Bee-bee gun. They don’t because that is vandalism and covered under most insurance comprehensive auto policies. Again, Your overall point is still valid because most people don’t carry Comp unless they have to but those that have Comp (in most cases) would likely have the damage covered as vandalism minus their deductible.
