California Court: Assault in Self-Defense Not An Insurance ‘Accident’

Does a liability insurer have a duty to defend an insured who deliberately commits assault and battery in self-defense? According to the Supreme Court of California, the answer is no, because the act of having to defend oneself does not fall within the policy’s coverage of an “accident.”

The case is Jonathan Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California (ACSC). Delgado was injured on Nov. 7, 2003 by Craig Reid, who had a homeowners insurance policy providing liability coverage for up to $100,000. Delgado sued Reid, saying Reid struck, battered and kicked him unprovoked. The second cause of action alleged that Reid “negligently and unreasonably believed” he was engaging in self-defense when he injured Delgado.

Reid turned to ACSC to provide defense in Delgado’s lawsuit. But ACSC said defense was not covered because the assault was not an “occurrence,” which was defined in the policy as an “accident.” The insurer said Reid’s actions were intentional, which fell under a policy exclusion.

The trial court said that there were no facts to support Delgado’s claim that Reid believed he was acting in self-defense, so it was “disingenuous at best” to characterize Reid’s assault and battery as an “accident.”

The Court of Appeal reversed the lower court decision, saying that harmful acts done with an unreasonable belief in self-defense describe conduct that is “properly characterized as non-intentional tortuous conduct” and therefore potentially an accident covered by the policy.

However, the state high court disagreed, finding that the acts were done with the intent to cause injury and the complaint does not show they were merely the result of a reflex action. Therefore, “the injuries were not as a matter of law accidental, and consequently there is no potential for coverage under the policy.”

Topics California