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 second degreeassault with a deadly weapon. Speed's attorney sent a demand letterto Geyer seeking $650,000 to compensate Speed for his injuries. Theletter described the incident 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 the bridge. Dr.Geyer followed Mr. Speed for an extended period of time before thetwo vehicles stopped for a traffic signal. According to witnesses,Dr. Geyer got out of his vehicle, opened the door of Mr. Speed'svehicle and beat Mr. Speed with his fists and a metal thermos,pulling Mr. Speed from his vehicle as he did so. Dr. Geyer thendrove 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 attorneys wouldbe seeking a seven-figure verdict or settlement. The letter furtherstated that if Geyer agreed to pay the requested amount, Speed andhis attorneys would recommend to the prosecutor that Dr. Geyer beallowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor 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 he haddeliberately 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 USAA wouldagree to pay the combined policy limits under Geyer's homeownersand auto-insurance policies, totaling $800,000. Finding coverage“questionable,” the insurer rejected the demand. It subsequentlysought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnifyGeyer 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, includingcontinuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same generalharmful 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 incidentdescribed in Speed's demand letter could not be considered an“accident” for purposes of the homeowners policy because it“unambiguously described [Dr.] Geyer's conduct as deliberate.”

The appellate court noted that the letter alleged that Dr. Geyerhad chased after Mr. Speed in his vehicle for an extended periodand, when the vehicles stopped for a traffic signal, Dr. Geyer gotout of his vehicle and beat Speed with his fists and a metalthermos. The letter also stated that the case was aggravated by Dr.Geyer's “intentional conduct” and was not a case involvingnegligence. Moreover, the appellate court continued, the letterprovided “no allegations” that would support the conclusion thatthere was an “additional, unexpected, independent and unforeseenhappening” that would convert Dr. Geyer's deliberate acts into anaccident. The appellate court also explained that Washington lawwas “clear” that no accident existed even when the insured'sdeliberate conduct was performed in self-defense.

It held, “Even interpreting the allegations liberally andresolving doubts in favor of a duty to defend, the USAA homeownerspolicy does not conceivably cover the allegations in [Mr.] Speed'sdemand letter.”

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.