410_C215
INSURER
NOT OBLIGATED TO COVER INJURIES FROM INTENTIONAL ACT
|
Personal Automobile |
Intentional Act |
On June 10, 2004, Joshua Thomas was driving his father’s car
when he crossed a double yellow line and collided head-on with a car driven by
William Hammer. Both cars rolled over as a result of the impact. Hammer
suffered multiple serious injuries; Thomas suffered a head laceration.
In an effort to determine what had happened, the police
interviewed Thomas at the hospital. Thomas admitted that before he began
driving he was arguing with his parents about whether he was taking his
medication for paranoid schizophrenia. He admitted that he was “driving
recklessly.” He then stated that when he saw Hammer’s car coming from the
opposite direction, he let go of the steering wheel. When the police officer
asked him why, he stated that he “wanted to hit the other vehicle” and that he
“wanted to end it all.” The accident was classified as an attempted suicide.
Later, Thomas changed his story and stated that poor
visibility contributed to the accident. When asked about his earlier
statements, he first stated that he didn’t know whether he wanted “to hit the
other vehicle,” and then he stated that he “didn’t want to hit it.”
Thomas was insured under a New Jersey Manufacturers
Insurance Company personal automobile policy. Hammer’s insurer was Proformance Insurance Company. The New Jersey Manufacturers
policy obligated the insurer to “pay damages for bodily injury or property
damage for which any insured becomes legally responsible because of an auto
accident.” The policy further provided that the insurer had “no duty to defend
any suit or settle any claim for bodily injury or property damage not covered
under this policy,” and it specifically excluded liability coverage for any
insured “[w]ho intentionally causes bodily injury or property damage.”
When New Jersey Manufacturers denied coverage, citing the
exclusion for intentional acts, Proformance filed a
declaratory judgment action. The parties agreed to stipulated
facts, including that “by letting go of the wheel, while traveling at about 65
miles per hour, there was a reasonable likelihood that Joshua would cause
property damage.”
The court found that this fact reflected an
intent to cause property damage. In addition, the court found that, as a
practical matter, “Thomas knew he would cause more than just property damage
and it was more than reasonably likely he would injure or kill himself or
someone in the other vehicle, but such a finding was unnecessary in view of the
stipulation that implicated the policy exclusion.” The court concluded that the
intentional acts exclusion in the New Jersey Manufacturers policy precluded
coverage for the claim. Proformance and Hammer
appealed.
On appeal, the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed the
decision of the lower court. In reaching its decision, the court noted that,
once it is established that a party “subjectively intended or expected to cause
some sort of injury, that intent will generally preclude coverage under a liability
insurance policy containing an exclusion for
intentional injury, unless there is evidence that the extent of the injuries
was improbable.”
The court then evaluated the facts of the case and found
that by arguing with his parents regarding whether he was taking his
medications, getting into his car and speeding on a public road, and letting go
of the steering wheel after seeing a car traveling toward him, Thomas
subjectively intended to cause some degree of injury to Hammer. Thus the New
Jersey Manufacturers policy exclusion applied.
The decision of the lower court in favor of New Jersey
Manufacturers Insurance Company was affirmed.
Hammer vs.
Thomas-Superior Court of New Jersey-August 9, 2010-2010 WL 3075330