469_C306
INTENTIONAL
ACT EXCLUSION INAPPLICABLE
|
Homeowners |
Negligent Supervision |
|
Intentional Act |
Duty to Defend |
Thomas and Cindy Kure had a homeowners policy
issued by Illinois Farmers Insurance Company. Their son, Matthew, was involved
in an altercation with Kyle Signorelli which resulted
in Kyle being paralyzed from the neck down. Kyle's parents sued Matthew Kure and his parents. Their complaint alleged that Matthew
negligently injured Kyle and that he was also guilty of willful conduct and
battery. The complaint also alleged that Matthew's parents were negligent in
allowing Matthew to use their vehicle to travel to Kyle's house and in failing
to control their son.
The Kures
sought coverage for defense of the lawsuit and indemnity from Illinois Farmers.
Farmers then filed an action for declaratory judgment, arguing that it had no
duty to defend or indemnify Matthew or his parents. The trial court found that
Farmers had a duty to defend Thomas and Cindy Kure,
but that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Matthew. Accordingly,
the court granted Thomas and Cindy's motion for summary judgment in their
favor. Farmers appealed.
The Illinois Farmers policy
provided in pertinent part: "We will pay those damages which an insured
becomes legally obligated to pay because of bodily injury, property damage or
personal injury resulting from an occurrence to which this coverage applies. 'Occurrence' means an accident, including exposure to
conditions which result during the policy period in bodily injury or property
damage. Repeated or continuous exposure to the same general conditions is
considered to be one occurrence."
On appeal, Farmers argued
that Kyle's injuries did not result from an "occurrence" as defined
by the policy. The lower court found that Kyle's injuries resulted from
Matthew's intentional acts, and thus were not the result of an accident.
According to Farmers, because there was no separate bodily injury resulting
from Thomas and Cindy Kure's negligent conduct,
Kyle's injuries were not the result of an "occurrence" and the policy
did not apply. The Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, disagreed. It
noted that in
Next, the court considered
whether the "intentional act exclusion" of the policy applied to
Thomas and Cindy. The language of the policy provided that the exclusion
applied when bodily injury, property damage or personal injury was "(a)
caused intentionally by or at the direction of an insured; or (b) resulted from
any occurrence caused by an intentional act by any insured where the results
are reasonably foreseeable." The court found the exclusion did not apply.
Again, the complaint contained no allegation that Thomas or Cindy intended that
Matthew would injure Kyle. Nor did it allege that Thomas and Cindy could even
foresee such a result. Thus, the intentional act exclusion did not apply.
The judgment of the lower
court in favor of Thomas and Cindy Kure was affirmed.
Illinois
Farmers Insurance Company vs.