David v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119473 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2014)
In David, the Central District of California ruled that intentionally hitting and biting another person was not an accident, and therefore did not fall within a homeowners' policy's definition of "occurrence," even though the hitting and biting was allegedly done in self-defense.
David arose out of an altercation between the insured and the claimant on October 17, 2007. While certain details of the altercation were disputed, both parties agreed that the insured struck the claimant with a hammer and bit her. These allegations resulted in a criminal complaint against the insured for attempted murder, attempted voluntary manslaughter, burglary and assault. The jury found the insured not guilty on each of those charges. Subsequently, the claimant filed a civil suit against the insured for "intentional tort and general negligence." In her complaint, the claimant alleged that the insured stalked her before ultimately confronting and chasing her. The insured tendered the complaint to his homeowners' insurance carrier. The carrier had issued a policy covering "Occurrences," which the policy defined in relevant part as "an accident."
As part of its investigation, the insurance company took the insured's recorded statement. During that statement, the insured took the position that the claimant was the initial aggressor and that his acts of hitting the claimant with a hammer and biting her were done in self-defense. The carrier denied coverage, and the underlying action was eventually settled for $300,000. The settlement included an assignment and a covenant not to execute the judgment against the insured. The claimant sued the carrier, which filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the alleged altercation did not constitute an "Occurrence." Relying on Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club of Southern California, 47 Cal. 4th 302 (2009), the District Court ruled in the insurer's favor.
In arguing for coverage, the claimant contended that Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co., 65 Cal. 2d 263 (1966) stands for the proposition that an assault conducted under a mistaken belief of the need for self-defense qualifies as an "Occurrence" and should therefore be covered by the homeowners' insurer's policy. However, the David court ruled that Delgado requires the opposite result when the policy at issue defines "Occurrence" in terms of an "accident" because a physical assault is never an "accident" even when done in self-defense. The claimant also argued that the cause of action for "general negligence" mandated a finding of coverage. The court disagreed and held that boilerplate negligence allegations do not create coverage where the complaint makes clear that the motivation for the lawsuit was the insured's intentional acts.
Originally published in California Insurance Law Quarterly - Fall 2014 Newsletter
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.