Dibenedetto v. Allstate Insurance Company, 469 F.Supp.3d 1243

Denise DiBenedetto owned an insured vehicle that her son, Andrew, was driving on November 4, 2015. Andrew drove aggressively, exited the vehicle, assaulted John Powell, and snapped his glasses. Andrew later pleaded guilty to harassment and criminal mischief.
Powell filed a civil suit against Andrew and Denise asserting assault, battery, conversion, wantonness, outrage, conspiracy, and a negligent entrustment claim against Denise. The state-court case later settled.
Allstate initially defended Denise under a reservation of rights, citing an intentional/criminal-acts exclusion in the policy that bars coverage for damages resulting from intentional or criminal acts of any insured.
After Andrew’s guilty plea, Allstate denied coverage and defense, invoking the exclusion; Denise sued Allstate for breach of contract and bad faith. Denise later conceded the bad-faith claim.
Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The district court held that the policy’s intentional/criminal-acts exclusion precluded coverage for the negligent entrustment claim and that the underlying conduct was not a covered “accident” or “use” of the vehicle, granting summary judgment to Allstate on all claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to defend/indemnify Denise on negligent entrustment claim	Negligent entrustment "arises out of" permitting use of the vehicle and is covered by the policy's coverage for damages arising out of ownership/use of an insured auto	The intentional/criminal-acts exclusion bars coverage for claims that result from an insured's intentional/criminal acts—even if the claim against a co-insured is framed as negligence	Court: Exclusion applies; Allstate owes no duty to defend or indemnify on negligent entrustment claim
Whether underlying conduct was an "accident" or "use" triggering coverage	The policy covers damages "arising out of" use of an insured auto; plaintiff relies on that coverage language	Andrew’s intentional acts after exiting the vehicle were independent, intentional criminal acts that break causal chain and are not an insured "use" or an "accident" under the policy	Court: Conduct was intentional, not an "accident" or covered "use"; no coverage
Bad-faith claim	Allstate acted in bad faith by denying defense/coverage	Allstate had an arguable basis (reservation then denial based on exclusion)	Plaintiff conceded bad-faith claim; Court entered judgment for Allstate
Burden of proof on coverage/exclusion	Plaintiff bears burden to show coverage exists	Insurer bears burden to prove exclusion applies	Court: Allstate met its burden to show exclusion; Denise failed to prove coverage

901 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2018) (summary-judgment standard on cross-motions)
922 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1991) (insured bears burden to prove coverage; insurer must prove exclusions)
103 So. 3d 795 (Ala. 2012) (policy exclusions construed narrowly but enforced as written)
675 So. 2d 377 (Ala. 1996) (intentional acts after exiting vehicle are not "use" of auto and break causal chain)
579 So. 2d 585 (Ala. 1990) (independent criminal acts do not arise from use of automobile)
874 So. 2d 1058 (Ala. 2003) (distinguishing policies that insure "occurrences" or "accidents")
893 So. 2d 1124 (Ala. 2004) (definition of "accident" as unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence)
928 So. 2d 1006 (Ala. 2005) (allegations in complaint control duty-to-defend analysis)