Insurance - Featured Products
9/16/2009 10:45:16 AM EST
New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide Cited by California Supreme Court in Delgado Decision on Insurer Defense Obligation in Assault Case against Homeowner
Practice Area Editor, LexisNexis Matthew Bender
Create an account or login to download your free copy.
The California Supreme Court has cited the New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide in its August 3rd decision in Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California, 47 Cal. 4th 302 (2009). In that case, the plaintiff, who was assaulted by a homeowner, settled his lawsuit against the homeowner and then sued the homeowner’s insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that the insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify the homeowner. The plaintiff contended that because the homeowner’s assault and battery was motivated by an unreasonable belief in the homeowner’s need for self–defense, the homeowner’s act fell within the liability insurance policy’s definition of an “accident.” This is because from the plaintiff’s perspective the assault was unexpected and unforeseen.
However, the California Supreme Court held that the homeowner’s assault and battery was not an accidental act from the homeowner’s perspective. It was done with the intent to cause injury. The homeowner’s unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense did not convert the intentional act of assault and battery into an accident within the policy’s coverage clause.
The plaintiff contended that because the coverage clause of the policy did not use the words “neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured” the word “accident” as used in the policy meant that whether an event is an accident must be determined from the injured party’s viewpoint. But the court turned to Chapter 30, Understanding Liability Insurance, of the New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide, to explain why that argument was flawed. The publication states:
For many years a debate raged about the relationship between the “accident” requirement and the separate requirement, also set forth in the insuring clause, that there be an injury “neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” Some courts interpreted the policy by conflating the two concepts, concluding that an “accident” refers to an unexpected or unintended injury. Other courts, concluding that the terms are different and have their own meanings, held that the “occurrence” definition is limited to events that are accidental in nature, and the rest of the definition merely confirms that expected or intended injuries are not “accidental” [citations omitted]. The ISO seemingly ended this debate in its 1985 policy revision, when it removed the “expected or intended” language from the “occurrence “ definition and created a new stand-alone exclusion for injuries that are “expected or intended.” As a result, it is now clear that the “accident” requirement has (or should have) no relationship to the “expected and intended” language, but is a separate coverage that stands on it own.
The court concluded that it was incorrect to assess the existence of coverage from the injured party’s viewpoint of whether the act was accidental. The assault was not an accidental act. The insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify in this case.
The New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide provides informative guidance and definitive answers to a multitude of today’s insurance coverage dispute issues. For example, the upcoming 2010 Edition will feature new chapters on Understanding Personal Injury and Advertising Liability Coverage, Understanding Intellectual Property Insurance and Understanding Cyber Insurance Liability Coverage.
Simply logon to your Insurance Law Center account to access the above FREE DOWNLOAD of the Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California decision.
If you don’t have an account set up yet, click here to register at our site, also for Free. Create an account or login to post comments.