Editor's note: Steven A. Meyerowitz, Esq., is a director of FC&S Legal. FC&S and PC360 are both owned by Summit Professional Networks.

An Illinois appellate court has affirmed a trial court's decision that a homeowners insurance carrier had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured in a lawsuit brought by a person who alleged that the insured had stabbed him with a knife in a fistfight, finding that the lawsuit failed to allege an “accident.”

The case

Joshua Weber, whose arm was in a sling, and Brendan Farley were patrons at a tavern when they became involved in a fight. Allegedly during the fight, Weber injured Farley by stabbing him several times with a knife that Weber had concealed on himself.

Weber was charged with misdemeanor battery but acquitted based on self-defense. When the criminal trial judge acquitted Weber, the judge stated:

“And, according to, now I got someone who has one arm free and he is in a sling. How much could he do to protect himself? He certainly couldn't do it with his hands. Whatever he had to do to protect himself was anything he could reach.

“I think there is certainly a defense of self-defense. There is finding of not guilty.”

Farley sued Weber for damages he alleged he sustained in the fight. His complaint alleged that Weber went into the bar, became intoxicated, and became involved in a fight with Farley inside the bar. The complaint further alleged that Weber had been negligent in causing “a knife to enter the body of Brendan Farley,” or “[n]egligently caused bodily harm to occur to Brendan Farley,” or “[e]xceeded the amount of force necessary to defend himself against Brendan Farley.”

Weber tendered defense of the complaint to State Farm Fire & Casualty Company under his parents' homeowners insurance policy.

State Farm agreed to fund Weber's defense subject to a reservation of rights. The insurer later filed a separate complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Weber in Farley's lawsuit because the Farley complaint did not allege an “occurrence” and coverage otherwise was excluded by the policy's intentional acts exclusion.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm and Weber appealed.

The policy

The policy provided:

COVERAGE L–PERSONAL LIABILITY
If a claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence, we will:
1. pay up to our limit of liability for damages for which the insured is legally liable; and
2. provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice. We may make any investigation and settle any claim or suit that we decide is appropriate. Our obligation to defend any claim or suit ends when the amount we pay for damages, to effect settlement or satisfy a judgment resulting from the occurrence, equals our limit of liability.

The policy also provided:

8. “occurrence,” when used in Section II of this policy, means an accident, including exposure to conditions, which results in:
a. bodily injury; or
b. property damage:
during the policy period. Repeated or continuous exposure to the same general conditions is considered to be one occurrence.

The policy also contained the following exclusion:

SECTION II–EXCLUSIONS
1. Coverage L and Coverage M do not apply to:
a. bodily injury or property damage:
(1) which is either expected or intended by the insured; or
(2) any person or property which is the result of willful and malicious acts of the insured.

The appellate court's decision

The appellate court affirmed.

In its decision, it noted that the policy only provided coverage for “bodily injury” when such injury was caused by an “occurrence.” Here, the appellate court found, the policy was not triggered because the underlying Farley action did not allege facts establishing that an “occurrence” had led to Farley's injuries.

The appellate court found that the Farley complaint did not allege conduct on the part of Weber that reasonably could be construed as being “accidental.” The appellate court declared that although the Farley complaint was styled under the rubric of negligence, thus implying an “innocent accident,” it alleged that:

Weber and Farley “got into an altercation inside the men's bathroom while both persons were on the premises of Irish Eyes.”
After leaving the bar, Farley attempted to get into an automobile when “Weber and several of his friends surrounded…Farley and prevented him from getting into the…automobile and leaving.” At that point, “Weber and his friends formed a circle around…Farley.”
“Farley attempted to flee by running through an opening between…Weber and another individual.”
“Weber caused injury to…Farley by stabbing him numerous times with a pocketknife that…Weber had on his person for the purpose of self-defense.”
As a result of the altercation, Weber “[n]egligently exceeded the amount of force necessary to defend himself against…Farley” or “[n]egligently exceeded the amount of force necessary to defend himself against…Farley by using a pocketknife.”

The appellate court ruled that it “strain[ed] credulity to conclude that stabbing an unarmed combatant several times with a knife, even if in self-defense, constitute[d] behavior of the type the State Farm policy intended to insure against.”

In sum, the appellate court found, Farley's injuries were not the result of any “undesigned sudden or unexpected event of an inflictive or unfortunate character.”

The case is State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Weber, Nos. 1–13–0156, 1–13–0335 (Ill. Ct.App. March 3, 2014).

Originally published on FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center. FC&S Legal is the industry's ONLY single-source, comprehensive portal developed specifically for insurance coverage law professionals. To find out more, visit www.fcandslegal.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

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

Special Reports /

A Fistfight, a Knife, a Stabbing, a Criminal Trial, but No Coverage for Insured's Claims

Related Stories

Recommended For You