Insurance Litigation Law Blog | Regulatory Law | Bad Faith | California | Lawyer | Attorney | Barger & Wolen

Scott Minkler sued David Schwartz and David’s mother, Betty Schwartz, alleging that David, an adult, sexually molested Scott, who was then a minor. The complaint alleged several causes of action against David, including sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, along with a single cause of action for negligent supervision against Betty, based on allegations that David molested Scott in Betty’s home, that Betty knew her son was molesting Scott, but that Betty failed to take reasonable steps to stop her son from doing so. Safeco Insurance Company of America insured Betty under a number of homeowners policies, in which David was an additional insured. Relying on the intentional acts exclusion, Safeco denied coverage as to both David and Betty.  This insurance coverage issue eventually made its way to the California Supreme Court.

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Minkler v. Safeco Insurance Company of America (June 17, 2010).  The Court determined that, despite the policy’s exclusion for injury that was “expected or intended” by “an” insured, or was the foreseeable result of “an” insured’s intentional act, the policy’s severability-of-interests clause (which provides that “[t]his insurance applies separately to each insured”) created an ambiguity with respect to a co-insured who did not act intentionally such that coverage would be resolved in favor of the co-insured.

After reiterating the rules by which insurance policies are to be interpreted under California law, the Supreme Court framed the issue as follows:

The issue presented is whether this severability or “separate insurance” clause created ambiguity as to the scope of the exclusion for intentional acts by “an” insured, and if so, whether the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of an interpretation whereby the exclusion applied only to the insured who committed such acts. We conclude that the answer to both questions is yes.  

In so concluding that the policy provided coverage for Betty, the Court disposed of a number of arguments raised by Safeco (such as the holding would encourage “householders to turn a ‘blind eye’ to acts of sexual abuse taking place in their homes”) as well as finding that the history of the introduction of the severability clause into liability policies in the 1950s further supported the Court’s determination of ambiguity. 

Moreover, the Court recognized that courts throughout the country have split over the issue, with the majority “concluding that a severability clause does not alter the collective application of an exclusion for intentional, criminal, or fraudulent acts by ‘an’ or ‘any’ insured.” Despite these “greater number of cases,” the Court found that its holding would preserve the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured that there would be coverage so long as the insured’s own conduct did not fall within the intentional acts exclusion.

Finally, the Court also sought to downplay the breadth of its holding by noting that many insurers’ policies contain an explicit exclusion for claims arising from sexual molestation, or that Safeco could have avoided this uncertainty to begin with by modifying its severability clause to only address the available limits under the policy rather than create an ambiguity between that clause and the intentional acts exclusion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a long-anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court issued its August 3, 2009 decision in Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California, finding that the contention (by the injured party) that the insured acted in self-defense when sued for assault and battery did not constitute an “accident” within the meaning of a liability policy and thus the insurer had no duty to defend the action. The decision is also noteworthy as it distinguished a number of prior cases, including Supreme Court cases, that had touched on similar issues.

Delgado arose out of altercation where the insured under a homeowner’s policy issued by Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California “hit and kicked 17-year old Jonathan Delgado.” Delgado sued the insured, setting forth two causes of action, one for intentional tort and one alleging that the insured “‘negligently and unreasonably believed’ he was engaging in self-defense ‘and unreasonably acted in self-defense . . . .’” 

The insured tendered the suit to his insurer, which denied coverage, including any duty to defend, on the basis that the claim did not constitute an “occurrence” under the policy, which term was defined as “an accident.” Delgado then dismissed the intentional tort claim and settled the remaining “negligent belief in self-defense” claim with the insured, who stipulated to judgment and assigned his rights to Delgado. Delgado then sued the insurer as a judgment creditor and for bad faith. While the trial court dismissed the action on demurrer, the Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the allegations potentially were an “accident” under the policy.

On review the Supreme Court first addressed the issue as to what constitutes “an accident” under a liability policy, which substantial case law had found to be “an unexpected, unforeseen, or undersigned happening or consequence from either a known or unknown case.” The Court rejected Delgado’s reliance on prior decisions of the Court that Delgado had contended held that the term “accident” was to be determined from the perspective of the injured party. The Court observed that, under such reasoning, plainly intentional acts like child molestation, arson and premeditated murder, if contended to be based on an unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense, could be considered an “accident” within the policy coverage. 

The Court also took the occasion to dismiss Delgado’s attempt to claim that prior decisions of the Court, such as Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co., 65 Cal. 2d 263 (1966), supported a duty to defend. The Court explained that Gray and cases like it involved situations whether the claim fell within the broad insuring provisions of the policy and the insurer sought to avoid a duty to defend based on the policy’s exclusion for injury “caused intentionally by or at the direction of the insured.” This is in contrast to the present case, where there was no exclusion at issue and the insured had the burden to demonstrate “an accident” and thereby fall within the policy’s insuring provision. 

In conclusion, the Court stated that “an insured unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense does not turn the resulting purposeful and intentional act of assault and battery into ‘an accident’ within the policy’s coverage clause . . .[and thus the insurer] had no duty to defend its insured in the lawsuit brought against him by the injured party.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks