 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Children's Friend and Service12/1/2005
remises and does not contemplate professional negligence.
Based on the foregoing, this Court concludes that Policy No. S 996-24-75 provides premises liability insurance coverage as opposed to general liability insurance coverage. Indeed, Travelers has failed to convince this Court otherwise. As the Rowey plaintiffs' complaint asserts no cause of action for premises liability, within the meaning of the policy as defined by this Court, National Union does not owe CFS a duty to defend under that policy. It necessarily follows, therefore, that Traveler's motion for partial summary judgment is denied to the extent it seeks a contrary declaration under that policy.
Of the seven insurance policies in question, however, only this policy contains the premises limitation. This Court must undertake additional analysis, therefore, to determine whether the possibility of coverage exists under the remaining policies. Such analysis must begin with defining the word "occurrence" as it is used in the policies at issue.
C. The Remaining National Union Insurance Policies
1. Defining an "Occurrence"
Each of the seven insurance policies issued by National Union to CFS features one of two definitions for "occurrence." The first three policies provide that "'occurrence' means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured." (Travelers' ex. F, G, H.) The remaining four policies are more simply worded, defining "occurrence" as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions." (Travelers' ex. I, J, K.) These same four policies further provide that the insurance does not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" that is "expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured." (Id.) Though worded slightly differently, the language of all of the policies is alike inasmuch as an "occurrence" must be an "accident" causing damages neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.
By itself, the word "accident" is problematic. An "accident" is " n unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated." Black's Law Dictionary 15 (8th ed. 2004). This definition is not helpful to this Court's analysis because it includes the word "occurrence," making the definition circular with respect to the insurance policies in question. Moreover, according to that dictionary definition, an "accident" is presumptively unintentional, yet the Rhode Island Supreme Court has held, to the contrary, that an "accident" may be an intentional act, provided that the result was unexpected from the point of view of the insured. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tavarez, 754 A.2d 778, 781 (R.I. 2000); see also Dias v. Cinquegrana, 727 A.2d 198, 200 (R.I. 1999); Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am. v. Oliver, 574 A.2d 1240, 1242 (R.I. 1990) (viewed from the perspective of the injured party, an intentional shooting constitutes "a most unexpected and unfortunate accident"). Nevertheless, for the purpose of determining whether an insurer owes its insured a duty to defend, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has held that when the insurance policy defines an "occurrence" as an "accident," an insurer owes its insured no duty to defend if the complaint alleges intentional acts. Craven v. Metro. Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 693 A.2d 1022, 1022-23 (R.I. 1997).
As listed above, the Rowey plaintiffs assert seven causes of action in their eleven count complaint. Of those seven, intentional misrepresentation and
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|