 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Northland Insurance Company v. Briones6/19/2000
>
We also agree with respondent and the trial court that there was no "occurrence" within the meaning of the policy. An "occurrence" is generally defined in the insurance industry as an accident resulting in bodily injury or property damage. (Collin v. American Empire Ins. Co. (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 787, 804.) Although the term is not defined in the homeowner's policy here, intentional actions are generally not occurrences because they are not accidents. (Dyer v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Ins. Co. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1540, 1547; Quan v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 583, 595-601 [no "occurrence" in nonconsensual sex case; negligence argument rejected]; Coit Drapery Cleaners, Inc. v. Sequoia Ins. Co., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th 1595, 1610 [sexual harassment not an "occurrence" because it was not unexpected or unintended from the viewpoint of the insured].) Mr. Briones cites no contrary authority and we agree with the trial court that there was no accident or occurrence within the meaning of the policy and Insurance Code section 533. (Ibid.; Lipson v. Jordache Enterprises, Inc. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 151, 159 [intentional conduct is not an "occurrence"].)
Thus, there was no potential for coverage and Northland's summary judgment motion was properly granted.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Northland is to recover its costs on appeal.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
I concur:
GAUT J.
RAMIREZ, J., Dissenting.
Today the majority holds that each of the injuries alleged in the underlying complaint arose from the alleged intentional sexual misconduct of defendant Daniel Briones, Jr., (Briones) and based thereon concludes that there was no potential that he might be covered for his acts under the policy of insurance he purchased from plaintiff Northland Insurance Company (Northland). I certainly agree with the majority that the acts Briones is alleged to have engaged in are reprehensible, especially in light of the position of trust that he held among a group of perhaps particularly vulnerable young people. However, because of the procedural posture in which this case comes before us, we are required by law to broadly construe the allegations of the underlying complaint in favor of Briones, and to resolve any doubts as to whether the facts give rise to a duty to defend in his favor. (Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081, 1084 (Horace Mann); Oliver v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403.) Thus, for the reasons that follow, I respectfully dissent.
Northland claims that the acts alleged in the underlying complaint are all intentional and thus do not constitute "accidents" or "occurrences" in the insurance context. Neither term is defined in the policy. However, developed case law holds that an accident is an event that occurs unexpectedly, by chance, or without intent, foresight or expectation. (Geddes & Smith, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 558, 563; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 1199, 1202.) Cases also hold that if an insured intends to do an act that results in injury , whether or not there was any expectation or intent that harm would result from the act, there is no covered "accident" or "occurrence" under the policy. (David Kleis, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1047.)
Northland also relies on an exclusion to coverage contained in Briones's policy that provides, " his insurance does not apply to any `bodily injury ,' `property damage,' `personal injury,' or `medical expense' arising out of:
"1. Physical abuse, sexual abuse,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|