A Massachusetts appellate court, affirming a trial judge's decision, has ruled that an insurance company had no obligation to defend its insured against claims that he had intentionally assaulted another person even if the insured said that he had not intended the harm that had resulted.
The Case
David Goff alleged that Jeoung F. Kim struck him in the face with his fist while they were at a party at the home of Matthew Lavoie, Barbara S. Lavoie, and Richard J. Lavoie.
After being notified, Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Company, which had issued a homeowner's insurance policy with a personal umbrella liability endorsement to Mr. Kim's father, went to court, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify Mr. Kim with respect to the claims asserted by Mr. Goff.
Following a jury-waived trial, the trial judge declared that Quincy had no obligation to defend Mr. Kim.
On the basis of testimony by three witnesses, the trial judge found that Mr. Kim had delivered three closed-fist punches to Mr. Goff's face, knocking him unconscious and causing him to strike his head on the pavement as he fell to the ground. The judge found that Mr. Goff had suffered serious injuries, including a fractured face, jaw, and skull, and had developed a seizure disorder. The trial judge made specific and detailed findings that the incident was not an accident or an act of self-defense, but that Mr. Kim, intentionally and without provocation, had struck Mr. Goff in the face with the purpose of causing him injury.
Mr. Kim appealed.
The Quincy Mutual Policies
The Quincy Mutual homeowner's policy provided for coverage for bodily injury resulting from an:
occurrence
, defined as:
an accident . . . which results . . . in “bodily injury”
The policy also provided that personal liability coverage did not apply to
“bodily injury” . . . [w]hich is expected or intended by the “insured”
or to
“bodily injury” . . . [a]rising out of . . . physical . . . abuse.
The personal umbrella liability endorsement also covered bodily injuries resulting from an occurrence, defined as:
an accident . . . which results . . . in . . . “[b]odily injury”
It excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of:
criminal acts
or
an act which is expected or intended by an “insured” to cause “bodily injury”The Appellate Court's Decision
The appellate court affirmed.
In its decision, the appellate court explained that because Mr. Kim had been “the perpetrator of an intentional attack,” the trial judge had concluded that the incident was not an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy and that coverage was precluded pursuant to the exclusions in the policy and endorsement.
It then rejected Mr. Kim's argument that because he had not specifically intended to cause the harm to Mr. Goff that resulted when his head hit the pavement, and it was not substantially certain that such harm would occur from punching Mr. Goff in the face, the injuries had resulted from an accident and were not excluded by the intentional act provisions of the homeowner's policy and umbrella endorsement. According to the appellate court, “reason” mandated that “from the very nature of the act, harm to the injured party must have been intended.” Because Mr. Kim had “intended to commit the inherently harmful act, his subjective intent as to the degree of injury he intended to cause,” the appellate court stated, was “irrelevant.”
The appellate court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in concluding that Mr. Kim had intended to strike Mr. Goff and that Mr. Goff's injuries were a direct result of the attack, or that Mr. Kim's attack was excluded from coverage and that Quincy Mutual had no duty to defend or indemnify him.
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].