Albert Totarella was insured under a homeowners policy from State Farm Insurance Co. Totarella appealed a trial court decision to grant the insurer's request for summary judgment.

Totarella was sued by the family of Brian Keeney for an incident that occurred in December, 2001. One evening, Keeney, as a prank, knocked on the door of Totarella's home and then fled. Totarella chased Keeney down (at the driveway of a home belonging to Keeney's friend), threw him to the ground and repeatedly punched him. The insurer denied the claim since, in its opinion, it involved an intentional (therefore excluded) act. The trial court, which had consolidated the insurer's motion along with the Keeney lawsuit, ruled in favor of the insurer.

In the appeal, Totarella alleged that the trial court made an error, arguing that, whether his actions were intentional, was a question of fact that should have been determined by a trial. The higher court focused on the same deposition used by the lower court. In it, Totarella stated that he thought Keeney was an intruder/vandal who had been causing problems in the neighborhood. Totarella claimed that he feared for his family's safety and that spurred him to pursue Keeney. He also stated that he did not mean to hurt Keeney, only to control him until the police arrived. In other words, Totarella alleged that the lower court failed to consider his argument and that he was owed protection by his insurer since his actions involved self-defense.

The appeals court reviewed the deposition, Totarella's arguments of self-defense and attempt at restraining a trespasser. The court also reviewed two relevant court cases. In the court's opinion, Totarella could not support his claim of self-defense and it noted that the suit filed against him claimed a malicious intent to cause harm. The court found that the trial court did not err in accepting and ruling upon a request for summary judgment. Further, the court agreed with the lower court decision to grant the insurer's motion.

Note: One judge issued a dissenting opinion, making the argument that the lower court case involved two parties alleging opposite facts: the plaintiff, an intentional beating and the defendant, self-defense/restraint. The dissenting judge argued that the disputed facts should have been subject to a trial and that both the original grant of summary judgment and the appellate decision were errors.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert Totarella, Defendant-Appellant Ohio Court of Appeals, No. 2002-G-2457. September 26, 2003. Affirmed. CCH 2003 Fire and Casualty Cases 6934