The severity of Amber Heard’s financial issues has recently gotten worse.
The actress is liable to her ex-husband Johnny Depp for $8.3 million in damages, but her insurance company has declined to pay some of the damages.
The choice was made during her defamation trial in May.
With the hope that it might cover some of the money, she owed to her ex-husband Johnny Depp, Heard acquired a $1 million liability policy with New York Marine and General Insurance Company.
The insurance company will likely refuse to pay out because of a clause in the policy that covers improper conduct, including defamation, according to TMZ.
However, if Heard were found to have engaged in “wilful” misbehaviour, the company’s clause would allow them to decline the million-dollar reward.
According to the New York Marine Company, the judge in the Depp v. Heard case did rule that Amber’s defamation was “wilful” and “malicious” in nature.
Heard’s attorneys, meantime, are requesting a new trial in her defamation case because the wrong individual served on the jury and rendered a verdict against her.
The original trial was held in Virginia, where Heard’s legal team filed the court papers.
The Virginia residence where the summons for jury duty was received in April allegedly housed two people with the same last name.
The severity of Amber Heard’s financial issues has recently gotten worse.
The actress owes her ex-husband Johnny Depp $8.3 million in damages, but her insurance company is refusing to pay some of it.
The choice was made during her defamation trial in May.
With the hope that it might cover some of the money she owed to her ex-husband Johnny Depp, Heard acquired a $1 million liability policy with New York Marine and General Insurance Company.
The insurance company is likely to refuse to pay out because of a clause in the policy that covers improper conduct, including defamation, according to TMZ.
However, if Heard was found to have engaged in “wilful” misbehaviour, the company’s clause would allow them to decline the million dollar reward.
According to the New York Marine Company, the judge in the Depp v. Heard case did rule that Amber’s defamation was “wilful” and “malicious” in nature.
Heard’s attorneys, meantime, are requesting a new trial in her defamation case on the grounds that the wrong individual served on the jury and rendered a verdict against her.
The original trial was held in Virginia, where Heard’s legal team filed the court papers.
The Virginia residence where the summons for jury duty was received in April allegedly housed two people with the same last name.
They assert that the 52-year-old appeared in court and served on the jury despite the summons being intended for a 77-year-old.
“It is deeply troubling for an individual not summoned for jury duty nonetheless to appear for jury duty and serve on a jury, especially in a case such as this,” they write.