Jonathan Delgado vs. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California
Filed 8/3/09
California Supreme Court
Cite as S155129

Supreme Court Holds that Assault and Battery Damages Not Covered By Insurance

Craig Reid was issued a homeowners’ insurance policy providing liability coverage for up to $100,000 by the Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California (ACSC).

While the policy was still effective, on November 7, 2003, Reid hit and kicked 17-year old Jonathan Delgado. In March 2004, Delgado sued Reid for an intentional tort wherein Reid physically struck, battered and kicked Delgado without any justification and for “negligently and unreasonably engaging in self-defense.”

Reid tried to tender to ACSC the defense of Delgado’s lawsuit but ACSC denied coverage and defense. CSC said that assault is not covered by the policy because it was not an occurrence as defined in the policy as an accident and that Reid’s intentional acts was excluded by the policy.

In 2005, the intentional tort claim was dismissed when Delgado and Reid settled the action by stipulating that Reid’s use of force was due to a negligent belief of self-defense and a $150,000 judgment against Reid. Reid also agreed to pay Delgado $25,000 and assigned his claims against ACSC.

Thus, Delgado brought this civil action for damages against ACSC and alleged that Reid’s reaction of physically battering and kicking him was an overreaction to an perceived imminent harm not willful or malicious and was an accident thus falling within the meaning of Reid’s insurance policy.

Delgado argued that unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense converts an assault and battery into an unintentional act and therefore is “an accident” within the policy’s coverage.

The Trial Court dismissed Delgado’s suit and said it was “contrived to expose ACSC to liability” and that there are no facts to support Delgado’s claim that Reid was acting in self-defense.

This decision was however reversed by the CA when it found that harmful acts done with an unreasonable belief in self-defense is a non-intentional tortuous conduct and that it is potentially an accident covered by the policy.

Accordingly, a petition for review by the ACSC was granted by the Supreme Court. In its decision, it held that an insured’s unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense does not turn the resulting purposeful and intentional act of assault and battery into “an accident” within the policy’s coverage clause.

The SC said that Reid’s assault and battery on Delgado were acts done with the intent to cause injury and that it was never proved that the act was self-defense. Therefore, the injuries were not as a matter of law accidental, and consequently there is no potential for coverage under the policy.

A ruling from Hogan v. Midland National Ins. Co., supra, 3 Cal.3d 553 held that a deliberate act causing an injury is not an accident. Further, a policy clause excluding coverage on intentional acts/injuries as stated in Insurance Code section 533, provides that an insurance company is not liable for a loss caused by a willful act of the insured.

It also cited its decision in Merced Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mendez wherein it held that “An accident, however, is never present when the insured performs a deliberate act unless some additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening occurs that produces the damage. Clearly, where the insured acted deliberately with the intent to cause injury, the conduct would not be deemed an accident.”

Thus, the intentional act of assault and battery cannot be considered “an accident” within the policy’s coverage clause. Therefore, the insurance company had no duty to defend its insured or is liable for damages in the lawsuit brought against him by the injured party.