A year and a half ago I was cheering on Mitt Rmoney as he called a news conference to rip into trump's ass.

which means that the Plaintiff's pleadings on their face assert a cause of action which is arguably covered by the policy. The insurance company is required to provide a defense (and pay attorney's fees) but can subsequently withdrawal the defense if they can establish based on their factual investigation of the claim that the lawsuit does not fit within the terms of the policy or that there is an exception in the policy that establishes a defense to their obligation to pay. Every word in an insurance policy is written to avoid paying a claim. Insurance companies are in the business of NOT paying claims-not paying claims. Boo-Hoo

Just don't plan on owning anything for 7 years.

Oops forgot.

He is Republican smear merchant.

Some billionaire will bail him out.

Scum helping scum.

O’Keefe has a lot of problems, not the least of which is he’s really never delivered on what he promised. He’s made some small splashes here or there but nothing game changing. I think the word on the street is O’Keefe’s pretty overrated.

Good luck with that jamie
My guess is, the arbitrator was chosen by the insurance company

That way, he will already be used to what hell is like when he goes to hell.

not because you got your butt sued for maliciously lying?

The most familiar example is auto insurance. In New York at least, and I think in every other state, you must obtain liability insurance in at least a certain amount before being allowed to operate the vehicle on the highway. The purpose is that, if you negligently cause an accident but you don't have any money, the injured victim will be able to get at least something from the insurance company, which will have to pay the damages up to the policy limit. (The required minimum is ridiculously low, but that's another issue.)

It seems clear that O'Keefe did purchase liability insurance. The issues he faces are whether the claims asserted in each of these lawsuits are within the scope of the terms of the policy; if so, whether liability insurance for claims of that type is prohibited by the applicable law; and whether the insurance company can avoid whatever obligations it would otherwise have under the contract by showing that the contract was fraudulently induced. O'Keefe has to win every one of those issues to get the benefit of the coverage.

refuse payment if it was a deliberate action on your part that instituted the incident in the first place?

Such a clause would come up in the context of "whether the claims asserted in each of these lawsuits are within the scope of the terms of the policy." There's a possibility that the claims against O'Keefe might be worded so broadly that at least one of them is covered.

Frankly, though, I'd rather think about the third issue -- fraudulent inducement. Some boilerplate language in an insurance policy that O'Keefe didn't read is much less interesting than the allegation that he lied to get the policy.

If the suit turns on that, we have an insurance company pouring money and legal talent into proving that O'Keefe's a liar. As a bonus, the company could compel O'Keefe to produce all relevant documents and then to answer questions under oath (i.e. penalty of perjury) at an examination before trial. If that's not enough, the company could also issue subpoenas to nonparties who might have relevant information. And all this gets done by lawyers who are used to defending claims and whose client/employer has a big financial incentive to destroy O'Keefe's credibility. Gotta love it.

He's best known for his fraudulent ACORN 'sting' videos, and making a career of similar frauds, of which the fraudulent Planned Parenthood video is merely the latest.

He's just a right wing troublemaker who has conned other right-wingers into financing his antics. There is nothing conservative at all about this con artist.

As for his argument that the people in his videos gave their consent, well, that is about as believable as a condemned man giving his consent to the firing squad.

Skeevy creature, that one.

When the proximate cause of your claim was no accident?