Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Claims Stemming from Insured’ Shooting of Woman

Does a homeowner’s policy cover a claim asserting that the insured was negligent when he placed a handgun on the victim’s neck and pulled the trigger? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a district court decision finding that there was no coverage in this case.  

The Case 

One evening, after spending some time at a club, Christopher X. Hutchins and Jessica Leigh Fraccalvieri went to their cars in the parking lot. Hutchins took a gun from his car, approached her car, and pressed the gun against her neck. The gun discharged and she was killed. Hutchins, who maintained that he was only “showing off” his gun and that he did not intend to shoot her, later pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. 

Representatives of Fraccalvieri’s estate sued Hutchins, asserting negligence and alleging that he had “placed the handgun to [Fraccalvieri’s] neck and pulled the trigger.” Geovera Specialty Insurance Company, which had issued a homeowner’s insurance policy to Hutchins’ grandmother, with whom he was living at the time of the shooting, brought an action seeking a declaration that the policy did not afford coverage for defense or indemnification in the wrongful death case. 

The court ruled in favor of Geovera, and representatives of Fraccalvieri’s estate appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

The Circuit Court’s Decision

The circuit court affirmed. It explained that the dispositive question was whether intentionally pressing the gun against Fraccalvieri’s neck was an assault or battery, regardless of whether Hutchins intended the harm that flowed from the contact. If it was either or both, the circuit court continued, the assault or battery exclusion applied and there could be no coverage under the policy. 

The circuit court then agreed with the district court’s conclusion that what Hutchins was alleged to have done in the wrongful death complaint constituted battery. The Eleventh Circuit explained that the fact that the complaint attempted to portray the intentional contact as “negligence” did not alter the outcome because a duty to defend could not be triggered merely by labeling an intentional act as “negligent.” 

The case is Genovera Specialty Ins. Co. v. Hutchins, No. 12-10364 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2013).