|
Homeowner |
Intentional Act |
|
Self Defense |
|
In November 2003, Craig Reid
assaulted 17-year-old Jonathan Delgado by hitting and kicking him. Delgado sued
him the following March. Reid was insured under an Interinsurance
Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California homeowners
insurance policy with a $100,000 liability insurance limit.
Delgado’s lawsuit alleged
two causes of action. The first was that Reid intentionally struck and kicked
Delgado (intentional tort). The second was that Reid “negligently and
unreasonably believed” he was engaging in self-defense “and unreasonably acted
in self- defense when [Reid] negligently and unreasonably physically and
violently struck and kicked [Delgado].”
Reid tendered defense of the
lawsuit to Interinsurance Exchange. The insurer
denied coverage, claiming that the assault was not covered because it was not
an “accident” and therefore not an “occurrence” within the meaning of the
policy and because the allegations fell under the policy’s intentional acts
exclusion.
Delgado eventually asked the
court to dismiss the intentional tort claim. Delgado and Reid then settled the
action for $150,000. As part of the settlement agreement, the parties
stipulated that Reid negligently believed he was acting in self-defense. Later,
in exchange for a payment of $25,000 and assignment of any claims Reid had
against his insurer, Delgado agreed not to demand the remainder of the judgment
from Reid. Delgado then filed an action against Interinsurance
Exchange. The trial court in that action found that the settlement and
stipulated judgment between Reid and Delgado were “contrived” to expose Interinsurance Exchange to liability, and thus found in
favor or the insurer. The appellate court reversed, finding that Reid’s conduct
was potentially an “accident” and thus an “occurrence” under the policy. The
Supreme Court of California agreed to review the case.
On appeal, Delgado claimed
that Reid’s assault and battery fell within the policy’s definition of “accident”
because, from the perspective of the injured party, the assault was
“unexpected, and unforeseen.” The Supreme Court of California rejected this
argument and concluded that the perspective of the injured party was not the
determining factor. Delgado also argued that Reid’s unreasonable, subjective
belief that self-defense was necessary converted his intentional act into an
“accident.” Again the court disagreed. It held that an insured’s 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 meaning of
the policy. Therefore Interinsurance Exchange had no
duty to defend Reid in Delgado’s lawsuit.
The judgment of the court of
appeals was reversed.
Delgado
vs. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of