The California Court of Appeal has held that a homeowners insurer had a duty to defend its insured against allegations that the insured’s “deliberate act” caused the claimant to suffer an “unintended injury.” ( State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Superior Court (2008) WL 2524668)
Facts
Joshua Wright and Jeffrey Lint attended a party. During the evening, the two began to argue. Wright went outside and Lint followed him. Lint then grabbed Wright, picked him up and threw him into the shallow end of a swimming pool. Wright landed on the pool’s concrete step and suffered injuries. As a result of the swimming pool incident, Lint was charged with misdemeanor battery, to which Lint pled nolo contendere .
Wright presented a claim to Lint’s homeowners insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. In the course of investigating the matter, State Farm obtained a recorded statement from Lint in which Lint stated that “if I wanted to hurt [Wright] … I would have just hit him, but I didn’t want to hurt him.” State Farm declined to defend or indemnify Lint against Wright’s claim, asserting that Lint’s alleged liability (1) did not result from an “occurrence” as required by the policy’s insuring clause, and (2) fell within the policy’s exclusion for “expected or intended” injuries or “willful and malicious” acts.
Wright filed a personal injury action against Lint, alleging various theories including negligence. During Lint’s deposition, Lint testified that when he followed Wright outside, he did not intend to hurt Wright and simply wanted to talk to Wright. Lint further testified that he threw Wright in the pool “[j]ust to get him wet,” as “horseplay” and as “something to laugh about.” Lint re-tendered his defense to State Farm, but State Farm again refused to defend Lint.
Lint stipulated to a judgment in favor of Wright for $60,000 and assigned his rights against State Farm to Wright. Wright then amended his complaint to include causes of action against State Farm for declaratory relief and breach of contract.
The trial court found that when Lint threw Wright into the pool, Lint only intended to get Wright wet and did not intend to injure Wright in any way. The trial court concluded that Wright’s injury arose from an “occurrence” and was not excluded from coverage, and that State Farm thus had a duty to defend Lint against Wright’s claim. State Farm sought appellate review.
Holding
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s ruling that State Farm was obligated to defend Lint against Wright’s personal injury claim.
The appellate court first addressed whether Wright’s claim against Lint arose from an “occurrence,” or “accident.” The court noted that although Lint deliberately picked Wright up and threw him in the pool, Lint only intended to “get [Wright] wet” and did not intend for Wright to land on the pool step. The court recited the rule that “an ‘accident’ exists when any aspect in the causal series of events leading to the injury or damage was unintended by the insured and a matter of fortuity .” The court then concluded that “Lint miscalculated one aspect in the causal series of events leading to Wright’s injury, namely, the force necessary to throw Wright far enough out into the pool so that he would land in the water. ” Because Lint did not expect or intend that Wright would land on the pool steps where Wright could get injured, Wright’s injury arose from an “occurrence,” or “accident.”
The court next addressed State Farm’s policy exclusion for “bodily injury … (1) which is either expected or intended by the insured; or (2) which is the result of willful and malicious acts of the insured.” According to the court, Wright’s injury was not “expected or intended” by Lint and was not the result of a “willful and malicious act” by Lint. Thus, this exclusion did not relieve State Farm of the duty to defend Lint against Wright’s claim.
Because Wright’s claim against Lint was potentially covered under the State Farm policy, State Farm was obligated to defend Lint against Wright’s claim.
Comment
Arguably the critical factor in this case is that when the insured threw the claimant into the pool, the insured did not expect or intend to cause any injury to the claimant. Presumably the result would have been different if the insured had performed a deliberate act with the expectation or intention of causing some injury to the claimant. For example, if the insured hit the claimant in the face intending to inflict a relatively minor injury (such as a bloody nose), but had instead inflicted a far more serious injury (such as a fractured skull), it would be more difficult under existing case law to see any potential for coverage.