 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allstate Insurance Co. v. McCarn11/15/2002
UNPUBLISHED
ON REMAND
I. Nature of the Case
This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court to determine whether the insurance policy's criminal acts exclusion negates Allstate's duty to indemnify the insureds. The facts and procedural history of this case are set forth in Allstate Ins Co v McCarn, 466 Mich 277; 645 NW2d (2002), where the Supreme Court reversed this Court and held that Kevin LaBelle's death was an "accident," and thus an "occurrence," covered under the insurance policy. On remand, we conclude that the policy's criminal acts exclusion to coverage applies in this case. We reverse and remand to the lower court for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff.
II. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
Issues involving the proper interpretation and application of an insurance contract are reviewed de novo. Cohen v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 463 Mich 525, 528; 620 NW2d 840 (2001). In reviewing an insurance policy, we must first look to the language of the policy and interpret its terms in accordance with the well-established principles of contract construction. McCarn, supra at 280. An insurance policy must be enforced according to its terms. Id. at 280. The terms of the insurance policy are given their commonly used meanings. Henderson v State Farm Fire & Casualty Co, 460 Mich 348, 354; 596 NW2d 190 (1999). The fact that a policy does not define a term does not render that term ambiguous. Id. If the terms of the policy are ambiguous, we construe the policy in favor of the insured. Id. However, where there is no ambiguity in the terms of the policy, the policy must be enforced as written. Id.
B. The Criminal Acts Exclusion
The intentional or criminal acts exclusion of the policy at issue states:
We do not cover any bodily injury or property damage intended by, or which may reasonably be expected to result from the intentional or criminal acts or omissions of, any insured person. This exclusion applies even if:
a) such insured person lacks the mental capacity to govern his or her conduct.
b) such bodily injury or property damage is of a different kind or degree than intended or reasonably expected; or
c) such bodily injury or property damage is sustained by a different person than intended or reasonably expected.
This exclusion applies regardless of whether or not such insured person is actually charged with, or convicted of a crime.
The trial court held that Robert's conduct was not intentional or criminal within the meaning of the policy. McCarn, supra at 280. Plaintiff argues that Robert's act of killing LaBelle by intentionally aiming a shotgun at his face and pulling the trigger without knowing that the shotgun was loaded constituted a criminal act that relieved Allstate of liability under the policy. We find merit in plaintiff's argument.
The exclusionary clause in this case is similar to the exclusionary clause in Allstate Ins Co v Freeman, 432 Mich 656, 685; 443 NW2d 734 (1989). Freeman establishes a two prong test that may be applied to the exclusionary clause at issue in this case. Such an exclusionary clause relieves the insurer of liability if "(1) the insured acted either intentionally or criminally, and (2) the resulting injuries occurred as the natural, foreseeable, expected, and anticipated result of an insured's intentional or criminal acts." Id. at 660 (emphasis in original).
We conclude Robert acted criminally under the first prong of the test. The elements of manslaughter under MCL 750.329 are:
(1) a death; (2) that the death was caused by an action of
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|