BROADCASTS.com

Published: Dec. 24, 2020, 2:11 p.m.

b'

Intentional Acts

\\n

https://zalma.com/blog

\\n

In Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Cook, the court was faced with the legal question of whether an individual\\u2019s homeowner\\u2019s insurance policy affords coverage when that individual is sued for wrongful death after killing a person in self-defense. On February 20, 2002, defendant Alfred S. Cook shot and killed Richard A. Barber, the decedent, after a disagreement over a business arrangement spun out of control. The decedent had entered Cook\\u2019s home without permission. During their discussions, Cook, armed with a handgun, retreated to his bedroom to retrieve a 12-gauge shotgun and then returned to the living room, where the fatal confrontation occurred.

\\n

\\n

Cook was indicted for a number of crimes, including murder in the second degree, stood trial, and was acquitted on all counts of the indictment. The jury concluded in the criminal case that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 120-pound Cook did not have legal justification for shooting the 360\\u2011pound decedent, who had previously attacked and injured Cook after he refused to leave Cook\\u2019s home.

\\n

\\n

Finding no coverage, the majority held there was no possible interpretation other than that the acts were intentional.

\\n

\\n

In a case where \\u201cthe policy language does not refer to an intentional act but, rather, contains an exclusion that applies to \\u2018assault and/or battery committed by any insured * * * or any other person.\\u2019 Application of the exclusion does not depend upon the perpetrator\'s mental state or whether [injured person] was the intended victim.\\u201d When the perpetrator was convicted of battery on the claimant the exclusion applies regardless of the perpetrator\\u2019s mental state.

\\n

\\n

\\n

In 1978, the California Supreme Court in Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co.71 dealt with a shooting that resulted in the death of the victim. Regardless, it still led to a finding by the Supreme Court of California of a need for defense and indemnity. The court concluded that Hartford had no duties with regard to Dr. Lovelace\\u2019s intentional acts in the killing of Dr. Clemmer but was obligated to defend him. If there was a finding of nonintentional conduct in the shooting, however, it would be obligated to defend and its refusal to do so was wrongful.

\\n\\n--- \\n\\nSupport this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support'