Golfer Who Allegedly Fought with Another Golfer, Striking Him with His Club, Loses Bid for Coverage
January 31, 2014 |The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, affirming a district court decision, has ruled that a homeowner’s insurance carrier was not obligated to defend or indemnify its insured for claims that he got into a fight with a golfer, struck him with his golf club, and injured him.
The Case
While golfing with his friends, the insured allegedly got into a fight with a member of another group of golfers, grabbed that golfer’s golf club, and struck him with it. The insured was sued, and he asked his homeowner’s insurance carrier to defend him. The insurer agreed to provide a defense under a reservation of rights, and filed a declaratory judgment action.
The district court concluded that, because the underlying plaintiff’s alleged injuries had not been caused by an “accident,” the alleged altercation did not constitute an “occurrence” under the terms of the policy. It concluded that the insurer did not have a duty to defend its insured and was entitled to summary judgment.
The insured appealed.
The Circuit Court’s Decision
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It explained that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the insured, demonstrated that the events underlying the complaint against him had not taken place without his “foresight, expectation, or design.”
Moreover, the circuit court said, its conclusion that the insured had acted intentionally was not changed by the insured’s contention that he had acted in self-defense. It also found that it was “immaterial” that the insured might not have intended the specific injuries allegedly suffered by the other golfer, explaining that because the insured had acted intentionally and voluntarily when he grabbed the other golfer’s golf club and struck him, he could not show that the other golfer’s injuries had resulted from “accidental means” such that they might be covered under the policy.
The case is Meritplan Ins. Co. v. Leverette, No. 13-13338 (11th Cir. Jan. 13, 2014).
