Opinion ID: 2769803
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motive for Purchasing Insurance

Text: The district court concluded that under the compulsory insurance doctrine, an insurer could not avoid paying the injured party for the insured’s lack of notice or cooperation if “(1) the insurance policy at issue [was] purchased to comply with the requirements of a statute; and (2) the plaintiff [was] an injured member of the public within the class protected by the statute.” Arguing the district court’s first requirement was not met, Westchester claims PALS purchased the policy only intending to comply with its obligation to carry hangarkeepers liability insurance under the Northwest-PALS service agreement. Assuming PALS’s subjective intent is relevant, there is no evidence in this record indicating PALS’s motive in purchasing its Westchester policy—PALS could have purchased coverage intending to comply with the contract, the ordinance, or both.