The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment to Burlington and denied Henstooth's motion for summary judgment, finding that the Burlington policy did not extend to coverage for intentional acts.

Henstooth appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit's Decision

The circuit court affirmed.

In its decision, the Ninth Circuit explained that the Burlington policy covered property damage caused by an “occurrence,” defined as “an accident.” The circuit court added that if Henstooth had shown that one of the claims in SLT's suit potentially was based on its accidental conduct, that would have required Burlington to defend Henstooth from the entire suit.

The circuit court ruled, however, that because the landscaping that SLT alleged had caused its damages was entirely intentional, the district court had correctly decided that Burlington had no duty to defend Henstooth.

The Ninth Circuit was not persuaded by Henstooth's argument that “the damage was unintentional” even if the actions it allegedly took were intentional. The circuit court reasoned that, under California law, “where the insured intended all of the acts that resulted in the victim's injury, the event may not be deemed an 'accident' merely because the insured did not intend to cause injury.”

Because SLT's suit did not concern accidental conduct under this state law standard, Burlington had no duty to defend Henstooth from it, the Ninth Circuit concluded.

The case is Henstooth Ranch, LLC v. Burlington Ins. Co., No. 18-15167 (9th Cir. May 22, 2019).