AMICA Insurance Company v. Vernon
1:14-cv-00235
| D. Idaho | Apr 17, 2015Background
- Defendant Russell Vernon sent an anonymous card and four‑paragraph insulting letter to co‑worker Roberta McIntire in December 2011; the card began "F You, You Fing F*" and included statements hoping she would be "run over by a train."
- McIntire committed suicide five days after receiving the card and letter.
- McIntire’s estate and her mother sued Vernon in state court for negligence, wrongful death, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Vernon sought defense/indemnity under his Amica homeowner’s insurance policy; Amica filed this declaratory‑judgment action denying a duty to defend or indemnify.
- Policy covers "bodily injury" caused by an "occurrence" (defined as an "accident") but excludes bodily injury "arising out of ... mental abuse."
- The Court resolved cross motions for summary judgment in favor of Amica, concluding the mental abuse exclusion precluded coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy provides duty to defend/indemnify for claims alleging emotional injury from Vernon’s conduct | Amica: exclusion applies; no coverage for injuries "arising out of" mental abuse | Vernon: conduct was a social interaction and not mental abuse; coverage should apply | Court: No duty to defend or indemnify — mental abuse exclusion bars coverage |
| Whether alleged injuries qualify as "bodily injury" caused by an "occurrence" (accident) | Amica: even if emotional injuries qualify, exclusion still bars coverage | Vernon: (argued implicitly) coverage should apply if injuries are bodily injury from occurrence | Court: Did not need to decide whether emotional injuries are "bodily injury" because exclusion is dispositive; additionally conduct was not accidental |
Key Cases Cited
- Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schrock, 252 P.3d 98 (Idaho 2011) (court decides whether policy language is ambiguous)
- Cherry v. Coregis Ins. Co., 204 P.3d 522 (Idaho 2009) (ambiguities in insurance policies resolved against insurer)
- Arreguin v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho, 180 P.3d 498 (Idaho 2008) (court resolves ambiguities; factual determinations for jury)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and burdens)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute and materiality standard for summary judgment)
- Heacker v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 676 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2012) (interpreting similar "mental abuse" exclusion; mental maltreatment can be excluded)