Policy’s Intentional Acts Exclusion Bars Coverage Even Where Insured May Have Lacked Mental Capacity to Govern His Conduct

A federal district court in Pennsylvania has ruled that an intentional acts exclusion in a homeowner’s insurance policy barred coverage of claims arising from an assault even where the defendant may have lacked the mental capacity to govern his conduct.

The Case

The administrator of the estate of a deceased man sued a couple and their mentally ill adult son. The complaint alleged that the son had attacked the deceased man and had killed him. The son was charged with murder, possession of an instrument of a crime, and resisting arrest. He was not convicted on any of these counts, however, but was found incompetent and sent to a state hospital.

The defendants’ homeowner’s insurance carrier sought a declaration that it did not have to provide a defense to the defendants. In response, the defendants contended that the insurer was obligated to defend them based on the complaint’s allegations of negligence. The insurer moved for summary judgment.

The Court’s Decision

The court granted the insurer’s motion.

The court found that the basic facts were undisputed: The couple’s son obtained a tool that the decedent was using to prune a tree and, without provocation, used it to bludgeon him so severely as to cause his death. According to the court, this type of “vicious assault” was one “reasonably expected to bring about bodily harm.”

The court then concluded that the policy’s exclusion for intentional conduct was applicable even if the couple’s son lacked the mental capacity to govern his conduct and regardless of whether he actually was charged with, or convicted of, a crime.

The case is Allstate Property and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Fischer, No. 12-6946 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2013).