469_C315
PORCH
BRAWL TRIGGERS COVERAGE DISPUTE
|
Homeowners |
Duty To Defend |
|
Intentional Act |
|
On April 15, 2002, Joseph Walukiewicz and Kevin Brown were involved in a physical
altercation while standing on the front porch of a house that belonged to
Brown’s estranged wife. Brown had arrived there
seeking to speak with his wife, and Walukiewicz,
after informing Brown that she was sleeping, encouraged Brown to leave. The two
men continued to discuss the matter while standing in close proximity to each
other on the front porch. At some point Walukiewicz
grabbed Brown, turned to one side and tossed Brown away from him. As a result
of these actions, Brown fell down the porch steps and sustained significant
injuries to his leg.
Brown filed a negligence
action against Walukiewicz seeking compensation for
his injuries. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company, Walukiewicz’s
homeowners insurer, filed a declaratory judgment
action, asking the court to determine that the policy’s intentional acts
exclusion applied and that it therefore was not obligated to defend or
indemnify Walukiewicz.
Prior
to a jury trial to determine whether or not the policy provided coverage for
Brown's negligence claim, Vermont Mutual filed two motions. The first motion
sought to preclude evidence as to the nature and extent of Brown's injuries. The second motion sought
to preclude any evidence that Walukiewicz was acting
in self-defense.
The trial court granted
both of the motions. As to the first motion, the trial court reasoned that the
proper inquiry for determining whether the intentional injury exclusion applied
was an objective one, i.e., if one intends to act, it may be inferred that he
also intends the natural and probable consequences of that act. Accordingly,
evidence that might indicate whether Walukiewicz
subjectively had intended to inflict the injuries suffered by Brown was not
relevant. As to the second motion,
the court reasoned that the policy did not explicitly provide for a
self-defense exception to the intentional injury exclusion, that a person
acting in self-defense necessarily is acting intentionally, and that
self-defense, while it perhaps provides a justification or motive for an act
that causes injury, does not render that act unintentional.
After instructing the jury
that it should apply an “objective” standard (what a “reasonable person” would
have intended) to determine whether or not Walukiewicz
intended to injure Brown, as opposed to evaluating Walukiewicz’s
actual “subjective intent,” the lower court found in favor of Vermont Mutual. Walukiewicz appealed.
On appeal, the Supreme
Court of Connecticut evaluated the lower court’s decision to apply an
“objective standard” as opposed to a “subjective standard” to determine Walukiewicz’s intent. The court noted that acts of
self-defense fell within the definition of “occurrence” and that they were “by
their very nature . . . spontaneous and unplanned [and] because [they were]
unplanned and unintentional, it follow[ed] that they
[were] accidental within the meaning of the policy.” In finding that acts of
self-defense fell within the intentional injury exclusion, the court stressed
that application of the exclusion was triggered “when the insured subjectively
expect[ed] or intend[ed] that bodily injury [would] occur, and not merely when
an ordinary, reasonable person would be able to foresee injury occurring as a
result of his acts.” Accordingly, the court found that the lower court erred
when it applied the “objective” standard, and that Walukiewicz’s
“subjective” intent---whether he was truly acting in self-defense--was the proper
standard.
The decision of the lower
court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings to
determine Walukiewicz’s subjective intent.
Vermont
Mutual Insurance Company vs. Walukiewicz-No. 18061-Supreme Court of
Connecticut-March 17, 2009-966 Atlantic Reporter 2d 672