A Washington appeals court, affirming a trial court's decision,has decided that a case alleging road rage did not allege an“accident” as required for coverage under either ahomeowners-insurance policy or an auto-insurance policy.

The case

Dennis Geyer and Robert Speed allegedly were involved in analtercation in which Speed suffered serious personal injuries.Washington State charged Geyer, a physician, with seconddegree assault with a deadly weapon. Speed's attorney sent ademand letter to Geyer seeking $650,000 tocompensate Speed for his injuries. The letter described theincident as follows:

“On March 2, 2009, Mr. Speed and Dr. Geyer were operating theirmotor vehicles in the vicinity of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Dr.Geyer apparently became angry over something Mr. Speed had donewhile driving in front of him. Once they were on the bridge, Dr.Geyer pulled along side [sic] Mr. Speed and motioned for him topull over. Frightened, Mr. Speed took the first exit after thebridge. Dr. Geyer followed Mr. Speed for an extended period of timebefore the two vehicles stopped for a traffic signal. According towitnesses, Dr. Geyer got out of his vehicle, opened the door of Mr.Speed's vehicle and beat Mr. Speed with his fists and a metalthermos, pulling Mr. Speed from his vehicle as he did so. Dr. Geyerthen drove away from the scene leaving Mr. Speed bleeding andunconscious in the street.”

The letter stated that “[t]his case is aggravated by theintentional conduct of Dr. Geyer, including leaving Mr. Speed,potentially for dead, at the scene” and that “[w]ere this a case ofnegligence that was covered by insurance” Speed's attorneyswould be seeking a seven-figure verdict or settlement. The letterfurther stated that if Geyer agreed to pay the requestedamount, Speed and his attorneys would recommend to theprosecutor that Dr. Geyer be allowed to plead guilty to amisdemeanor assault charge.

Geyer, who carried homeowner's and auto insurance policies withUnited Services Automobile Association (USAA), notified USAA of theincident and Speed's claim. He requested coverage under bothpolicies.

At his trial on criminal charges, Geyer admitted that hehad deliberately hit Mr. Speed, but claimed he was acting inself-defense. A jury found Geyer guilty of third degreeassault.

Speed offered to release Geyer from all claims if USAAwould agree to pay the combined policy limits under Geyer'shomeowners and auto-insurance policies, totaling $800,000. Findingcoverage “questionable,” the insurer rejected the demand. Itsubsequently sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend orindemnify Geyer for the claim.

The trial court ruled in favor of the insurer, and the issuereached a Washington appeals court.

The homeowners policy

USAA's homeowner's insurance policy provided coverage for bodilyinjury caused by an:

occurrence

The policy defined “occurrence” as:

an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure tosubstantially the same general harmful conditions, which results,during the policy period, in … bodily injury.

The auto policy

The auto insurance policy provided coverage for bodily injurycaused by an:

auto accident.

The appellate court's decision

The appellate court affirmed.

First, it found that the incident described in Speed'sdemand letter could not be considered an “accident” for purposes ofthe homeowners policy because it “unambiguously described [Dr.]Geyer's conduct as deliberate.” The appellate court noted that theletter alleged that Dr. Geyer had chased after Mr. Speed in hisvehicle for an extended period and, when the vehicles stopped for atraffic signal, Dr. Geyer got out of his vehicle and beat Speedwith his fists and a metal thermos. The letter also stated that thecase was aggravated by Dr. Geyer's “intentional conduct” and wasnot a case involving negligence. Moreover, the appellate courtcontinued, the letter provided “no allegations” that would supportthe conclusion that there was an “additional, unexpected,independent and unforeseen happening” that would convert Dr.Geyer's deliberate acts into an accident. The appellate court alsoexplained that Washington law was “clear” that no accident existedeven when the insured's deliberate conduct was performed inself-defense. It held:

“Even interpreting the allegations liberally and resolvingdoubts in favor of a duty to defend, the USAA homeowners policydoes not conceivably cover the allegations in [Mr.] Speed's demandletter.”

The appellate court reached the same conclusion with respect toDr. Geyer's auto insurance policy, explaining that its holding thatMr. Speed's claim did not allege an accident for purposes of thehomeowner's policy applied equally to the “auto accident”requirement in USAA's auto policy.

The case is United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Speed,No. 43728–7–II (Wash. Ct.App. Jan.28, 2014). Attorneys involvedinclude: Simon Henri Forgette, Attorney at Law, Kirkland, WA,Benjamin Franklin Barcus, Ben F. Barcus & Associates PLLC,Tacoma, WA, Howard Mark Goodfriend, Smith Goodfriend PS, Seattle,WA, for Appellant; Irene Margret Hecht, Keller Rohrback LLP,Seattle, WA, Maureen Mullane Falecki, Keller Rohrback LLP, Seattle,WA, for Respondent.

Originally published on FC&S Legal: TheInsurance Coverage Law Information Center. FC&S Legal isthe industry's ONLY single-source, comprehensive portal developedspecifically for insurance coverage law professionals. To find outmore, visit www.fcandslegal.com. All rights reserved. Thismaterial may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, orredistributed.

This article is designed to provide accurate andauthoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered.It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engagedin rendering legal, accounting or other professional service. Iflegal advice is required, the services of a competent professionalperson should be sought.