American National Property & Casualty Companies v. Hearn
93 A.3d 880
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- On Sept. 15, 2006, Brandon Hearn intentionally struck Clayton Russell in the groin while Clayton was playing a video game; Clayton suffered testicular torsion and emergency surgery and may be infertile.
- Clayton and his mother, Stacey Marshall, sued Hearn for battery, assault, negligence, emotional distress, infertility, loss of consortium, and punitive damages (Underlying Complaint).
- American National Property & Casualty Companies (ANPAC) had issued a homeowner policy to Hearn’s parents and filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that the policy excluded coverage for injuries that are "expected or intended by any insured."
- ANPAC moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it, concluding the intentional-act exclusion applied and ANPAC had no duty to defend or indemnify; Clayton and Marshall appealed.
- The undisputed record (complaint allegations and Hearn’s deposition) showed Hearn snuck up and struck Clayton intentionally; Hearn admitted he meant momentary pain but did not intend the severe injury.
- The court affirmed: the policy exclusion (“expected or intended by any insured, even if the actual injury or damage is different than expected or intended”) and the policy’s definition of "occurrence" as an "accident" precluded coverage for intentional assault/battery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ANPAC had a duty to defend/indemnify under the policy | Russell/Marshall argued the complaint included negligence claims and therefore coverage could be triggered | ANPAC argued the complaint’s factual allegations and deposition show an intentional assault excluded by the policy | Held: No duty to defend/indemnify because allegations and admissions show intentional act excluded by policy |
| Whether the intentional-act exclusion covers harms greater than intended | Appellants relied on Elitzky to argue exclusions ambiguous and should be construed against insurer | ANPAC pointed to broad exclusion language that excludes coverage "even if the actual injury...is different than expected or intended" | Held: Exclusion unambiguously bars coverage even if the resulting injury was more severe than intended |
| Whether Hearn’s act qualifies as an "occurrence" (i.e., an "accident") under the policy | Plaintiffs argued the pleaded theories (including negligence) could characterize the event as an occurrence | ANPAC argued the deliberate assault is not an "accident" and thus not an "occurrence" | Held: The intentional assault is not an accident/occurrence under the policy; no coverage |
| Whether plaintiffs can challenge ANPAC’s reservation-of-rights letters | Appellants argued the letters were deficient | ANPAC argued plaintiffs lack standing (they are not insureds) and letters adequately reserved rights | Held: Appellants lack standing; letters were adequate and ANPAC not estopped from disclaiming coverage |
Key Cases Cited
- United Serv. Auto. Ass’n v. Elitzky, 517 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. 1986) (exclusion ambiguous where it applied only to harms the insured intended; construed against insurer)
- Erie Ins. Exch. v. Fidler, 808 A.2d 587 (Pa. Super. 2002) (no coverage where insured’s intentional conduct caused injury; intentional-tort exclusion enforced)
- Gene’s Rest., Inc. v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 548 A.2d 246 (Pa. 1988) (an "occurrence" defined as an accident excludes willful and malicious assaults)
- Indalex, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 83 A.3d 418 (Pa. Super. 2013) (duty to defend is determined by the complaint’s factual allegations, construed in insured’s favor)
- Step Plan Servs., Inc. v. Koresko, 12 A.3d 401 (Pa. Super. 2010) (insurer may defend under reservation of rights and simultaneously contest coverage)