 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lyles v. City of Charlotte and Motorola Inc.11/8/1996
the policy in this case would cover most Woodson claims. As Justice (now Chief Justice) Mitchell wrote for a unanimous Court in Stox :
The primary issue to be resolved in this appeal is whether liability for personal injuries suffered by the defendant Louise Hooks Stox, which occurred when she fell as the result of a push by the defendant Gordon Owens, is covered by a policy of homeowners liability insurance issued to Owens by Farm Bureau. We conclude that under the language of the policy in question, coverage is provided.
Id. at 699, 412 S.E.2d at 320.
The exclusion at issue in the instant case is for "bodily injury intentionally caused or aggravated by or at the direction of the insured." In Stox, the exclusion was for "bodily injury . . . which is expected or intended by the insured." In that case, we considered whether the policy's exclusion placed Owens' liability for injury to Stox outside the coverage of the policy. We said:
The trial court found from competent evidence before it that, although Gordon Owens intentionally pushed Louise Stox, he had no specific intent to cause her injury. Thus, the injuries she sustained were "the unintended result of an intentional act." These findings supported the trial court's Conclusion that "the 'expected or intended injury' exclusion contained in the policy is inapplicable."
Id. at 703, 412 S.E.2d at 322. In Stox, the Court of Appeals relied upon Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Mauldin, 62 N.C. App. 461, 303 S.E.2d 214 (1983), in holding that the exclusion applied. In Commercial Union, the Court of Appeals properly held that a person's actions in shooting into an occupied automobile were excluded from coverage under his homeowner's policy by the "expected or intended injury" exclusion. This Court distinguished Commercial Union as follows: "Under the rules of construction which govern this exclusionary provision in the Farm Bureau homeowners policy, we disagree with the Court of Appeals and conclude that it is the resulting injury, not merely the volitional act, which must be intended for this exclusion to apply." 330 N.C. at 703-04, 412 S.E.2d at 322. Firing a pistol into an occupied vehicle and pushing an individual are both intentional acts, but the former, and not the latter, is excludable under the homeowner's policy.
Returning to the instant case, the policy excludes from coverage "bodily injury intentionally caused or aggravated by or at the direction of the insured." Construing this provision narrowly, as we must, it does not apply to this case. There is no allegation in the complaint, or in the summary judgment materials before this Court, which indicates that plaintiff believes or contends that the police department did anything with the intent to injure or to kill Mr. Lyles or anyone else. Nor is such an intent required in order to state a Woodson claim. As we said in Woodson :
Thus, both courts and legislatures in a fair number of other jurisdictions have rejected the proposition that actual intent to harm is required for an employer's conduct to be actionable in tort and not protected by the exclusivity provisions of workers' compensation. Our adoption of the substantial certainty standard does the same.
Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 344, 407 S.E.2d 222, 230 (1991).
The complaint in Woodson stated a claim against Rowland, not because Rowland intended to injure Woodson by requiring him to remain in the dangerous trench, but because Rowland insisted on Woodson's continuing to work in the trench notwithstanding the substantial likelihood of injury. As we said in our per curiam reversal of the Court of Appeals in Owens v. W.K. Deal Printing, I
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|