 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
VERMONT MUTUAL INS. CO. v. SINGLETON6/20/1994
This appeal arises from the special referee's order of insurance coverage in a declaratory judgment action. We affirm.
FACTS
The insurance policy being construed is a voluntary homeowners policy which contains coverage for "bodily injury . . . caused by activities of the insured" but contains an exclusion for "bodily injury . . . which is expected or intended by the insured." This is commonly referred to as the "intentional act exclusion." The Appellant, Vermont Mutual Insurance Co., (hereinafter Vermont), brought this declaratory judgment action on September 21, 1990, to determine inter alia, whether its insured, Respondent, Stephen Webb, was entitled to a legal defense and insurance coverage for the injuries suffered by Respondent, Benjamin Singleton. Singleton's injuries were
In November 1990, the Webbs filed their answer and in February 1991, the Singletons filed an answer and asserted a cross-claim against the Webbs. At the conclusion of discovery, the case was referred to the special referee for a final decision based on deposition testimony, the pleadings, the medical records, and the insurance policy.
On January 6, 1993, the special referee issued his written order finding that the insurance policy provided coverage and that Vermont was required to defend the Webbs. The Referee ordered that Vermont would be responsible for any damages adjudged in favor of the Singletons, and that the Singletons were entitled to recovery on their cross-claim for money damages in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand, Five Hundred, Fifty-Four dollars ($75,554). It is from this order that Vermont now appeals.
ISSUES
Vermont raises the following three issues on appeal:
1. Whether, when construing a homeowners policy's "intentional act exclusion," this Court should adopt the intentional act analysis as announced by the Court of Appeals in Snakenberg v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, 299 S.C. 164, 383 S.E.2d 2 (Ct.App. 1989);
2. Whether insured Stephen Webb's striking Benjamin Singleton constituted an Intentional act which would exclude coverage under the homeowner's insurance policy issued by Vermont; and
3. Whether the Webbs breached the insurance policy by failing to provide sufficient and timely notice of the incident to Vermont.
LAW/ANALYSIS
Snakenberg Analysis
The special referee determined that insurance coverage existed based on our earlier precedent established in Miller v. Fidelity Phoenix Ins. Co., 268 S.C. 72, 231 S.E.2d 701 (1977). In Miller, we held that the validity of an
In Snakenberg, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether the tort arising from an invasion of privacy was an intentional act which would preclude coverage under the policy issued to Mr. Snakenberg. A reading of the Snakenberg opinion raises two interesting considerations. The first is that throughout the opinion there is no citation or reference to Miller, supra, or to the two-prong analysis announced in Miller. The second is that the parties in Snakenberg conceded that there was no coverage as to the tort of outrage and, therefore, the Court of Appeals focused only on the "intentional act" characterization of the invasion of privacy action.
Vermont argues that we should ignore our own precedent to adopt a more "contemporary" intentional act analysis. This argument misapprehends the Snakenberg decision. The respondents argue, and we agree, that the Court of Appeals focused almost entirely on whether the tort of invasion of privacy was an intentional act. The intended harm or results of the act were not addressed because the arguments presented in
Page 1 2 3 4 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|