Policy Excluded Coverage Even if Insured’s Voluntary Intoxication Affected His Intent, Court Rules

A federal district court in Georgia has ruled that a homeowner’s insurance policy excluded coverage for claims that the insured had assaulted his daughter-in-law even if the insured’s voluntary intoxication had affected his intent. 

The Case

A woman sued her father-in-law, alleging that, after they had left a bar, he was intoxicated, placed her in a headlock, hit her on the head, choked her, and shoved her out of his pick-up truck.  His homeowner’s insurance carrier sought a declaration that its policy did not cover the claims, and it moved for judgment on the pleadings.

The Court’s Decision

The court granted the insurer’s motion.

It first found that the alleged intentional malicious misconduct was not covered under the homeowner’s policy whether that alleged intentional misconduct gave rise to causes of action for intentional torts or negligent ones.

Then, the court ruled that even if the insured was negligent in creating the circumstances that allowed the alleged intentional torts to occur – that is, he negligently got drunk – his daughter-in-law’s causes of action “arose out of and were clearly caused by the intentional misconduct” that was not covered under the homeowner’s policy.

Simply put, the court concluded that the policy excluded coverage even if the insured’s voluntary intoxication affected his intent.

The case is Nationwide Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. O’Neill, No. 3:13-cv-47 (CDL) (M.D.Ga. Nov. 8, 2013).