An insured’s deliberate act that caused unintended injury to the claimant was not an “occurrence,” or “accident,” within the meaning of a liability policy. ( State Farm General Insurance Company v. Frake (2011) WL 2714179)
Facts
John King and Patrick Frake were friends. During high school and continuing thereafter, King, Frake and several other friends frequently engaged in consensual “horseplay” which involved hitting each other in the groin.
King and Frake attended a baseball game together where Frake became intoxicated. After the game, as part of their horseplay tradition, King attempted to hit Frake in the groin, but Frake blocked the attempt. Frake then “retaliated” by throwing his arm out to the side and striking King in the groin. Although Frake did not intend to injure King, King suffered a serious injury to his testicles.
King later filed a personal injury action against Frake alleging negligence, assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Frake tendered the defense of the lawsuit to State Farm Insurance General Insurance Company pursuant to a renters policy that provided coverage for damages because of bodily injury caused by an “occurrence.” The policy defined the term “occurrence” as “an accident ….” Eventually, State Farm agreed to defend Frake against King’s lawsuit, under a reservation of rights.
King’s lawsuit against Frake proceeded to trial solely on a negligence theory. The jury found that Frake had acted negligently and awarded King over $450,000 in damages. Frake and King then entered into an agreement in which King promised not to execute on Frake’s personal assets, and in exchange King received an assignment of Frake’s rights against State Farm.
State Farm filed a declaratory relief action seeking a determination that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Frake against King’s claims. The trial court concluded that State Farm did have a duty to defend and indemnify Frake, and entered judgment against State Farm. State Farm appealed.
Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed. The appellate court acknowledged that an “accident” may exist “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.” However, “where damage is the direct and immediate result of an intended … event, there is no accident.” Here, Frake admitted that he intended to strike King in the groin area, and it was undisputed that King suffered injuries as a direct result of the strike. Therefore this was not a case where some “unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening” in the causal chain produced the resulting harm. Rather, King’s injuries were “the direct and immediate result of an intended … event.” The mere fact that Frake did not intend to injure King did not transform Frake’s intentional conduct into an accident.
Because King’s claims against Frake did not arise from an “occurrence,” or “accident,” State Farm did not have any duty to defend or indemnify Frake in the underlying action brought by King.
Comment
The Frake court acknowledged and discussed a prior case, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 317 ( Wright ). In Wright , the insured attempted to throw the claimant into a swimming pool, but did not use enough force, with the result that the claimant landed on a step in the shallow end and suffered injuries. The court in Wright found that, under those circumstances, where the insured’s deliberate conduct produced an unintended injury to the claimant, there was an “occurrence,” or “accident.” However, the Frake court found that Wright was not controlling, for at least two reasons.
First, Wright was factually distinguishable because in Wright the insured’s deliberate conduct (i.e., throwing the claimant into the pool) was followed by an “intervening act” (i.e., the claimant landing on a step in the shallow end) which in turn produced the injury to the claimant. By contrast, in Frake , there was no “intervening act” between the insured’s deliberate conduct and the claimant’s injury.
Second, to the extent Wright held that an “occurrence” or “accident” includes a deliberate act that directly causes unintended harm, such a holding “is contradictory to well-established California law.” Specifically, according to the Frake court, an “occurrence” or “accident” is not present where the insured commits a deliberate act that directly results in unintended harm to the claimant.