Potential for Home Insurance to Cover Him?

Does your brother have any assets? H e could just file for bankrupcy, with them as a creditor. Washes it away.

Since the lawsuit is stemming from an intentional act, bankruptcy is not an option (it is not dischargeable).
 
1. file a claim immediately

2. let the insurance company decide what is covered

3. negligence and intentional acts are two separate and very different things and the line is blurred in many jurisdictions. I would suspect the plaintiff attorney plead both. Negligence hooks the homeowners policy.

good luck.

Not quite sure how intentionally striking someone in the face could be considered "negligence" rather than an intentional act.

Negligence: (Noun)
Failure to take proper care in doing something
Failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another.


Intentional Act

An "intentional act" as one in which the actor either:

1. Consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of the result happening from his conduct, or

2. Knows that the result is "substantially certain" to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as to that result." Shepherd v. Exxon Mobil Corp. SGS North Am., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20625, 6-7 (M.D. La. Mar. 11, 2009)
 
you again?

it may very well be intentional - but a negligence count hooks the policy (defense) thus the reason to contact your HO carrier.

If person A punches person B and person B falls and hits head on concrete. Many jurisdictions ruled the injuries striking the concrete is not intentional - the punch intentional yes but person A didn't foresee the unintended consequences - thus the negligence angle.
Me again. Just out of curiosity: Are you an agent or an attorney? Each of your posts seems to involve some variation of "take them to court" or "hook the carrier".

Person A punches Person B. Attacking another person is intent to cause bodily harm or injury.

Can you cite the findings of the jurisdictions that have ruled that a homeowners liability policy would be responsible for the unintended results of a malicious action? Just curious. You could be right, but I have handled many, many liability losses and investigations in many jurisdictions and have never run across anything like that. It would be of great benefit to me if I had advance knowledge of issues such as this is whatever jurisdictions that may have issued such rulings.
 
Here is the expected/intended liability exclusion in the ISO homeowner forms:

Expected Or Intended Injury
"Bodily injury" or "property damage" which is expected or intended by an "insured", even if the resulting "bodily injury" or "property damage":
a. Is of a different kind, quality or degree than initially expected or intended; or
b. Is sustained by a different person, entity or property than initially expected or intended.
However, this Exclusion E.1. does not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" resulting from the use of reasonable force by an "insured" to protect persons or property;

In a real life court case (not involving this language), an insured learns that his wife is at a bar with her alleged lover. The insured goes into the bar with a pistol and starts firing, missing the two people he's shooting at but killing a guy in a booth. The court found that the insured had HO coverage because he didn't intend to shoot the guy in the booth. I suspect b. above would exclude that.

As far as I know, the highlighted portion of the exclusion above has not been tested in court, but I haven't really looked hard.

The one that could be the most troubling is a. above. For example, I'm burning leaves in my backyard and the wind picks up, carrying flaming debris and burning down my neighbor's house. Is that PD "of a different kind, quality or degree than initially expected or intended" such that the damage is excluded? I hope not.
 
Neither but you can keep guessing. Each of your posts seems to suggest - no coverage - no liability - take your ball and go home. Very few jurisdictions or fact patterns are that clear cut but you can continue to assume away.
Are you a Public Adjuster? That's the only profession other than attorney that I can think of off hand that recommends litigation against anyone who comes near.

Only these two threads you have witnessed in your whole 24 hours (has it even been 24 hours?) here have been "no coverage" discussions that have been going on for a couple of months.


Google intentional act exceptions - 2.9MIL hits - there's some light Sunday reading for you. Maybe you'll learn something to include in your next report. Just think if you get the intentional fire condo fatality - you will be all set - you'll be superman you can adjust the property, the liability and possibly handle the subrogation.

Here you go:
Extent of Intended Harm Not Determinative
If , however, an insurer succeeds in showing an act was intended to cause the resulting harm, it is not necessary to prove that the insured expected to cause the extent of harm that ultimately occurred. The "resulting harm" concerns the type of harm inflicted--whether personal injury or property damage--and not the extent of the harm actually sustained. City of Newton v. Krasignor, 404 Mass. 682 (1989).

So, just based on City of Newton v. Krasignor, the question would seem to be: "When the insured punched the claimant in the face, did the insured intend to harm the claimant?". I am sure there is a conflicting ruling somewhere else, so it would come down to jurisdiction.

We could delve deeper into this, but ultimately, the OP has yet to even have filed a claim, so until that happens, we could argue till we were blue in the face and still not have an answer. I can say that as an independent adjuster, I have no obligation to enrich the insured or claimant, and I have no obligation to save the carrier money. My function is simply to provide the objective facts of the loss (what happened, to what extent, how, and why the carrier should or should not pay for it, based on our interpretation of the policy language). In this situation, my first advice to the carrier would be to deny the claim, since attacking someone not in self defense is an intentional act, which is specifically excluded from coverage. The resulting damage, regardless of anticipated severity from the attack on the claimant would be irrelevant.

I did find some interesting references to "horseplay" when doing my "light Sunday evening reading", but those do not apply here, since the OP admitted that it was a fight, though the booze might add an interesting aspect to the loss.
 
Yes in the internet age - post count = knowledge.
Nah, the point was that saying that all my posts suggest the denial of a claim was a bit pre-mature, considering you have not been around here long enough to make that judgement based on more than a thread or two.

My suggestion - notify the homeowners insurer - I don't think that is all that crazy of advice.

I didn't recommend litigation on this one. Just a phone call.
Sorry, confused it with the other ones. Filing a claim is indeed the only way to determine if the carrier will cover it. I seriously doubt the carrier will confuse negligence with intent, but there is only one way to find out.

Others in no particular order - no coverage, file bankruptcy (thats always a cheap way to go /sarcasm), hope they amend the complaint to add the parents, etc. The phone call is probably toll free. Then if denied a written denial would be in order - very risky to deny a claim in litigation. How about if they defend under Reservation of Rights? Who pays defense? In your years of "providing objective facts" ever provided a recommendation that both pay the insured and the carrier to settle the claim?
Every denial is written, and if the claim is denied based on specific exclusions, it is not risky at all. Why bother to defend under an RoR? The insured admitted and has been convicted of the attack, which makes the intent issue pretty clear.

I have crunched the numbers for carriers on more than one occasion, showing why it would be more cost effective to settle than to defend, even when they are in the right. That said, I certainly do not advocate settling claims in that manner, and would much rather defend a justified denial of coverage, but it is not my checkbook, so the objectivity comes into play yet again.

Liked the comment on self defense - self defense is an intentional act as well - there is no exception to the exclusion for "self defense".
There is. I made it easy for you to read:
2. Exclusions
This insurance does not apply to:
a. "Bodily injury" or "property damage" expected or intended from the standpoint of
the insured even if the resulting "bodily injury" or "property damage":
(1) Is of a different kind, quality or degree
than initially expected or intended; or
(2) Is sustained by a different person, entity,
real or personal property, than initially
expected or intended.
This exclusion does not apply to "bodily injury" resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property;


Booze? Is there a separate forum for booze related claims? Drunks are covered? Deny them on the spot!!! /sarcasm
I simply said that booze adds an interesting aspect to the loss. Any time someone can claim impairment, there is someone out there willing to absolve the impaired of responsibility for their actions while impaired. Never know if it will be a judge or jury.
 
The ISO Homeowners policies include a "self defense" exception to the liability expected/intended loss exclusion:

Expected Or Intended Injury
"Bodily injury" or "property damage" which is expected or intended by an "insured", even if the resulting "bodily injury" or "property damage":
a. Is of a different kind, quality or degree than initially expected or intended; or
b. Is sustained by a different person, entity or property than initially expected or intended.
However, this Exclusion E.1. does not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" resulting from the use of reasonable force by an "insured" to protect persons or property;
 
Back
Top