|
|
Publications
Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Assault and Battery Claims Against its Insured – California Supreme Court
Insurance Law Update
The California Supreme Court, in Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club of Southern California, ___ Cal.4th ___, 2009 WL 2356908 (August 3, 2009), rejected arguments that an insured’s “unreasonable belief” that he was acting in self-defense when he assaulted and battered the plaintiff was sufficient to trigger coverage under a homeowner’s policy covering “accidental” conduct resulting in bodily injury.
Craig Reid, Automobile Club’s insured, was sued by Jonathan Delgado for intentionally striking and kicking Delgado. While Delgado’s first claim against Reid was for intentional tort, the second claim alleged that Reid “negligently and unreasonably believed” he was engaging in self-defense when striking and kicking Delgado. After Automobile Club denied coverage, Delgado dismissed the intentional tort claim and settled with Reid for terms that included an assignment of rights and a covenant not to execute.
Delgado then filed suit against Automobile Club for inter alia breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court sustained Automobile Club’s demurrer to the complaint on the basis that “there were no facts alleged to support Delgado’s claim that Reid believed he was acting in self-defense,” and stated that it was “‘disingenuous at best’ to characterize insured Reid’s assault and battery as an ‘accident.’” After the Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the underlying action potentially involved “nonintentional tortious conduct,” the California Supreme Court granted review and reversed the appellate court. The California Supreme Court rejected the argument that whether there was “accidental” conduct could be determined based upon the perspective of the injured party. (Delgado had also alleged that the attack was “unexpected” from his perspective.) The court affirmed that the term “accident” is not ambiguous, as it means “an unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned happening or consequence...” The court explained that the term “accident” refers specifically “to the injury-producing acts of the insured, not those of the injured party.” Accordingly, Delgado’s assertion that the conduct was unexpected from his perspective was irrelevant. The court further held that Reid’s alleged “unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense” could not transform his “purposeful and intentional act of assault and battery into ‘an accident’ within the policy’s coverage clause.”
|
Related People
Related Offices
Related Practices
|