INTENTIONAL DAMAGE EXCLUSION HELD APPLICABLE ALTHOUGH DAMAGE WAS MORE SEVERE THAN EXPECTED

INTENTIONAL DAMAGE EXCLUSION HELD APPLICABLE ALTHOUGH DAMAGE WAS MORE SEVERE THAN EXPECTED 469_C036

INTENTIONAL DAMAGE EXCLUSION HELD APPLICABLE ALTHOUGH DAMAGE WAS MORE SEVERE THAN EXPECTED

The issue for the appeal court in this case was whether Section II personal liability insurance in a homeowners policy covered damage beyond that contemplated by the named insured's minor son who, with others, vandalized a house.

The boys broke into the house, hit lights with sticks, smashed windows and caused other damage. They then flipped lighted matchbooks, which they found in a box, at each other. One fell on a sofa, resulting in a fire that destroyed the house. A lawsuit ensued that included the father and son as defendants.

The homeowners insurer sought a declaratory judgment that it had no coverage obligation by virtue of a policy exclusion, applicable to personal liability insurance, for damage which is "expected or intended by the insured." It appealed from a trial court denial of its motion.

The insured father argued that his son did not "expect or intend" the burning down of the house. He acknowledged that the window and lighting equipment breaking and some other damage was intentional, but contended that the fire was not caused by those acts.

The appeal court found the evidence undisputed that the boy "expected" and "intended" to damage the property. Among cases involving similar circumstances it had previously reviewed, it cited Stein v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company, 172 Gs. App. 811, 813 324 SE 2d 510, in which it concluded that:

The pertinent exclusion "....is applicable if the insured acts with the intent or expectation that....injury occur, even if the actual, resulting injury is different either in kind or magnitude from that intended or expected."

The court agreed with the insurer that the exclusion applied whether or not the boy intended the destruction of the house by fire. The lighting and throwing of matchbooks, including flipping one on a sofa, was deliberate and damage could be expected. The severity of the damage, the court said, "does not vitiate the element of intent."

The judgment of the trial court was reversed in favor of the insurance company and against the insured.

(GEORGIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant v. PURVIS, Appellee. Georgia Court Or Appeals. No. A94A0804. April 19, 1994. CCH 1994 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 4962.)