California

Amber Heard insurance company refuse to cover damages owed Johnny Depp

Amber Heard’s insurance company REFUSES to cover some of the $ 8M in damages she owes ex-husband Johnny Depp because her libel was ‘intentional and malicious’

Advertisement

<!–

<!–

<!–

<!–

<!–

<!–

Amber Heard’s insurance company refuses to cover part of the $ 8.3 million damage the actress owes to ex-husband Johnny Depp after her defamation lawsuit in May. Heard had a $ 1 million liability policy with New York Marine and General Insurance Company, which she had hoped would cover at least part of the damages she needed to settle.

The policy covers unfair behavior of various kinds, including defamation, but there is a clause that will likely show that the insurance company refuses to pay, TMZ reports. Under California law, the state in which the insurance policy is issued, the company claims to be able to refuse the multimillion-dollar payment if Heard is found to have committed “intentional” misconduct.

The New York Marine Company states that in its finding, the judge found that the defamation committed by Amber was both 'intentional' and 'malicious'. The insurance company now wants to see the judge declare that they are not in line to pay part of Amber's bill based on the policy.

The New York Marine Company states that in its finding, the judge found that the defamation committed by Amber was both 'intentional' and 'malicious'. The insurance company now wants to see the judge declare that they are not in line to pay part of Amber's bill based on the policy.

The New York Marine Company states that in its finding, the judge found that the defamation committed by Amber was both ‘intentional’ and ‘malicious’. The insurance company now wants to see the judge declare that they are not in line to pay part of Amber’s bill based on the policy.

The fallout from the showdown is still raging with Heard's lawyers on Friday demanding a new trial in their defamation suit alleging that the wrong person served on their jury and judged against them. Heard's team submitted the court documents in Virginia 'based on additional facts discovered', they said.

The fallout from the showdown is still raging with Heard's lawyers on Friday demanding a new trial in their defamation suit alleging that the wrong person served on their jury and judged against them. Heard's team submitted the court documents in Virginia 'based on additional facts discovered', they said.

The fallout from the showdown is still raging with Heard’s lawyers on Friday demanding a new trial in their defamation suit alleging that the wrong person served on their jury and judged against them. Heard’s team submitted the court documents in Virginia ‘based on additional facts discovered’, they said.

Her lawyers claim that two people with the same last name lived in the house in Virginia where the jury was sent in April. The appeal was intended for a 77-year-old person, but instead the 52-year-old appeared before the judge and served on the jury.

Her lawyers claim that two people with the same last name lived in the house in Virginia where the jury was sent in April. The appeal was intended for a 77-year-old person, but instead the 52-year-old appeared before the judge and served on the jury.

Her lawyers claim that two people with the same last name lived in the house in Virginia where the jury was sent in April. The appeal was intended for a 77-year-old person, but instead the 52-year-old appeared before the judge and served on the jury.

'It is deeply difficult for an individual who has not been called up for jury duty to appear for jury duty and serve on a jury, especially in a case like this,' they write. The submission notes that Virginia has guarantees in place to prevent these types of mixups, such as using a seven-digit jury number, zip code and date of birth to verify the identity of jurors.

'It is deeply difficult for an individual who has not been called up for jury duty to appear for jury duty and serve on a jury, especially in a case like this,' they write. The submission notes that Virginia has guarantees in place to prevent these types of mixups, such as using a seven-digit jury number, zip code and date of birth to verify the identity of jurors.

‘It is deeply difficult for an individual who has not been called up for jury duty to appear for jury duty and serve on a jury, especially in a case like this,’ they write. The submission notes that Virginia has guarantees in place to prevent these types of mixups, such as using a seven-digit jury number, zip code and date of birth to verify the identity of jurors.

“Those guarantees are in place and trusted by the parties to verify the identity of the appropriate juror, to ensure a proper trial and a fair trial for all proceedings,” the submission reads. ‘If these guarantees are circumvented or not followed, as seems to be the case here, the right to a jury trial and due process will be undermined and compromised. Under these circumstances, an abuse would have to be pronounced and a new trial ordered. ‘

The document gave no reason why this probably happened or said how the situation was discovered. Friday's submission comes after the actress' legal team filed claims on July 1 that the verdict at trial was not supported by evidence presented during the six-week hearing. July 1 outlined the issue of the 'wrong' Juror 15, but did not go into as much detail as Friday's document.

The document gave no reason why this probably happened or said how the situation was discovered. Friday's submission comes after the actress' legal team filed claims on July 1 that the verdict at trial was not supported by evidence presented during the six-week hearing. July 1 outlined the issue of the 'wrong' Juror 15, but did not go into as much detail as Friday's document.

The document gave no reason why this probably happened or said how the situation was discovered. Friday’s submission comes after the actress’ legal team filed claims on July 1 that the verdict at trial was not supported by evidence presented during the six-week hearing. July 1 outlined the issue of the ‘wrong’ Juror 15, but did not go into as much detail as Friday’s document.

Depp sued his former partner over an article in 2018 she wrote for the Washington Post about her experiences as a survivor of domestic abuse, which his lawyers said falsely accused him of being an abuser. On June 1, the jury ruled in his favor. Heard's lawyers also said last week that the judge should overturn the verdict because the amount awarded to Depp - $ 10 million in compensatory damages and $ 5 million in criminal damages - was 'excessive' and 'indefensible'. She was awarded $ 2 million.

Depp sued his former partner over an article in 2018 she wrote for the Washington Post about her experiences as a survivor of domestic abuse, which his lawyers said falsely accused him of being an abuser. On June 1, the jury ruled in his favor. Heard's lawyers also said last week that the judge should overturn the verdict because the amount awarded to Depp - $ 10 million in compensatory damages and $ 5 million in criminal damages - was 'excessive' and 'indefensible'. She was awarded $ 2 million.

Depp sued his former partner over an article in 2018 she wrote for the Washington Post about her experiences as a survivor of domestic abuse, which his lawyers said falsely accused him of being an abuser. On June 1, the jury ruled in his favor. Heard’s lawyers also said last week that the judge should overturn the verdict because the amount awarded to Depp – $ 10 million in compensatory damages and $ 5 million in criminal damages – was ‘excessive’ and ‘indefensible’. She was awarded $ 2 million.

Advertisement

Amber Heard insurance company refuse to cover damages owed Johnny Depp Source link Amber Heard insurance company refuse to cover damages owed Johnny Depp

Related Articles

Back to top button