 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Grimes11/8/2004
ended by, or which may reasonably be expected to result from the intentional or criminal acts or omissions of, any insured person.
The Grimes contend that Ms. Yarbrough's complaint alleges a cause of action against them for negligent acts and omissions separate and independent of those of their son Wesley. Some of Ms. Yarbrough's injuries are alleged to be the result of Lawrence and Janet Grimes' failure to render aid to Ms. Yarbrough after the shooting. Paragraph 23 of the Complaint states:
Further, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's parent's, Lawrence and Janet Grimes, were negligent in that they heard the Plaintiff's sister's cries for help, and witnessed the Plaintiff laying injured in their own driveway, but rendered no assistance to the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff was invited to their residence by the Defendant.
The Grimes further contend that the alleged act of failing to render aid is arguendo an intervening and superseding event and if Ms. Yarbrough can establish that she sustained injuries as a proximate result of the alleged failure to render aid then such damages are not the result of the intentional and criminal act of Wesley (or the Grimes) and thus are not excluded.
Allstate argues that this court has interpreted an identical joint obligations clause to exclude coverage. Allstate v. Jordan, 16 S.W.3d 777 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). In Jordan, the homeowners' son shot the victim who came to the home to deliver a pizza. As in this case, the homeowner's son lived in the home. The homeowners were alleged to be negligent in the supervision of their son. As is the case here, Allstate provided homeowner's coverage to the homeowners. Allstate denied coverage insisting that the homeowners' liability was based on the son's intentional and criminal act and, therefore, there was no coverage due to the application of the "joint obligations clause."
As Allstate suggests, the relevant policy provisions are identical to those in Jordan and the facts are similar. In Jordan, the homeowners' son was accused of burglarizing a home from which guns were stolen. The homeowners were informed that their son was suspected of burglarizing the home. The weapon used to shoot the pizza delivery employee in Jordan was stolen in the earlier burglary. The parents of the shooting victim sued the homeowners and their son. The complaint alleged inter alia that the homeowners negligently supervised their son and negligently allowed their son to have a weapon in their home. This court held that Allstate was not obligated to provide coverage or a defense for the homeowners stating:
The policy language in the instant case specifically excluded coverage for intentional criminal acts of any insured person. Not only is this language quite explicit, but also under the joint obligation clause it is clear that there can be no coverage for any insured when one of the insureds commits an intentional act for which coverage is sought. This clause provides that the acts of an insured person are binding on any other insured person. We find no ambiguity in the language of the policy that would lead an insured to believe that the insurance company would provide coverage for any insured resulting from the intentional acts of any other insured. Sean Jordan's intentional act in shooting Troy James Lavin is binding upon the other insureds under the policy, Ross and Susan Jordan.
Id. at 782 -783.
While the policy provisions are identical, there is one significant difference between these two cases. Lawrence and Janet Grimes are alleged to have failed to render aid after the shooting, after the intentional and criminal act by their son Wesley. Th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|