ADAM CHARLES COPP v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA
279 Va. 675
April 15, 2010, Decided
At the time of the incident in question, Copp was an insured under a homeowner's policy and an umbrella policy issued by Nationwide to Copp's parents. The homeowner's policy provided coverage for an "occurrence," described as bodily injury or property damage "resulting from an accident," but excluded coverage for liability "caused intentionally by or at direction of an insured, including willful acts the result of which the insured knows or ought to know will follow from the insured's conduct." The umbrella policy provided coverage for personal injury and property damage arising from an "occurrence," meaning an "accident." The umbrella policy contains one clause excluding liability for "personal injury arising out of . . . willful violation of a law by or with the consent of the insured" and a second clause excluding liability for "bodily injury or property damage intended or expected by the insured." However, this latter clause specifically provides that it "does not apply to bodily injury or property damage caused by an insured trying to protect person or property."
Whether the insurer had no duty to defend for any of the intentional acts alleged in the complaint?
Nationwide says, the four corners of the complaint only alleged intentional torts, and the insurance policies provided coverage only for an "occurrence," which is defined as "resulting from an accident." Therefore, Nationwide concludes, "there were no facts or circumstances alleged in the complaint that would fall within the risk covered by the policy," and "the trial court could not consider Copp's claim that his acts were made in self defense, because matters raised by the insured in defense of the claim are not to be considered in evaluating whether there is a duty to defend.
The court held that "the umbrella policy contains an exception to the exclusion relating to "bodily injury or property damage intended or expected by the insured." The exception is found in one of the four corners of the insurance contract and stands on an equal footing with other provisions thereof. It cannot be ignored or explained away on specious grounds. And it requires consideration of an insured's claim that he or she caused bodily injury or property damage trying to protect person or property in evaluating whether there is a duty to defend in a given case."
Accordingly we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand the case with direction to enter an order declaring the rights and duties of the parties consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA
279 Va. 675
April 15, 2010, Decided
At the time of the incident in question, Copp was an insured under a homeowner's policy and an umbrella policy issued by Nationwide to Copp's parents. The homeowner's policy provided coverage for an "occurrence," described as bodily injury or property damage "resulting from an accident," but excluded coverage for liability "caused intentionally by or at direction of an insured, including willful acts the result of which the insured knows or ought to know will follow from the insured's conduct." The umbrella policy provided coverage for personal injury and property damage arising from an "occurrence," meaning an "accident." The umbrella policy contains one clause excluding liability for "personal injury arising out of . . . willful violation of a law by or with the consent of the insured" and a second clause excluding liability for "bodily injury or property damage intended or expected by the insured." However, this latter clause specifically provides that it "does not apply to bodily injury or property damage caused by an insured trying to protect person or property."
Whether the insurer had no duty to defend for any of the intentional acts alleged in the complaint?
Nationwide says, the four corners of the complaint only alleged intentional torts, and the insurance policies provided coverage only for an "occurrence," which is defined as "resulting from an accident." Therefore, Nationwide concludes, "there were no facts or circumstances alleged in the complaint that would fall within the risk covered by the policy," and "the trial court could not consider Copp's claim that his acts were made in self defense, because matters raised by the insured in defense of the claim are not to be considered in evaluating whether there is a duty to defend.
The court held that "the umbrella policy contains an exception to the exclusion relating to "bodily injury or property damage intended or expected by the insured." The exception is found in one of the four corners of the insurance contract and stands on an equal footing with other provisions thereof. It cannot be ignored or explained away on specious grounds. And it requires consideration of an insured's claim that he or she caused bodily injury or property damage trying to protect person or property in evaluating whether there is a duty to defend in a given case."
Accordingly we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand the case with direction to enter an order declaring the rights and duties of the parties consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
SHARE
