Erie Insurance Exchange v. Moore
175 A.3d 999
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On Sept. 26, 2013 Harold McCutcheon went to his ex-wife Terry’s home, killed her, then committed suicide; Richard Carly arrived unexpectedly, struggled with McCutcheon, and was shot and severely injured.
- Carly sued McCutcheon’s estate alleging the wound occurred during a struggle and was caused by negligent/careless/reckless handling of the gun (wild firing), not an intentional shooting.
- Erie Insurance had a homeowner’s policy and an excess liability policy in force for McCutcheon that covered injury from an “occurrence” defined as an “accident,” but excluded injury “expected or intended” by the insured.
- Erie filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the Estate because the shooting was intentional and excluded.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Erie, finding McCutcheon’s conduct deliberate and thus excluded; the Superior Court reversed, holding Carly’s complaint alleged an accidental shooting that potentially falls within coverage and therefore Erie has a duty to defend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injuries alleged are an “occurrence”/“accident” under the policies | Carly: complaint alleges unintentional, negligent/ reckless discharge during an unplanned struggle — qualifies as an accident/occurrence | Erie: facts show deliberate conduct (brandishing and shooting a gun) so not an accident | Held: Allegations (taken as true) describe chaotic, unintentional firing; qualifies as an occurrence for duty to defend |
| Whether the policies’ “expected or intended” exclusion bars coverage | Carly: complaint does not allege McCutcheon intended to injure Carly; exclusion inapplicable | Erie: shooting was reasonably anticipated/substantially certain given use of a gun in a struggle; exclusion applies | Held: Intent means desire or substantial certainty; complaint does not plead such intent as to Carly, so exclusion not triggered at pleading stage |
| Proper scope of review for duty to defend | Carly: insurer’s duty is determined solely by comparing the four corners of the complaint and the policy | Erie: urges consideration of discovery and factual record asserting deliberate conduct | Held: Duty to defend is fixed by the complaint’s allegations alone; extrinsic discovery facts cannot be used to defeat duty to defend at this stage |
| Whether summary judgment for insurer was appropriate | Carly: disputed intent/mental state creates issues for trial; summary judgment improper | Erie: argues law supports finding of no occurrence as matter of law | Held: Summary judgment for Erie was erroneous; appellate court reversed and remanded to enter judgment recognizing Erie’s duty to defend (remanding for further proceedings) |
Key Cases Cited
- Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baumhammers, 938 A.2d 286 (Pa. 2007) (defines “accident” as unexpected/unintentional; compare insured’s perspective)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Elitzky, 517 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. 1986) (coverage excluded only when insured intended the resulting damage; foreseeability alone insufficient)
- Mohn v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, 326 A.2d 346 (Pa. 1974) (insurer disclaimer based on foreseeability rejected; focus on insured’s intent)
- Ohio Cas. Grp. v. Bakaric, 513 A.2d 462 (Pa. Super. 1986) (example of no coverage where trial found shooting was intentional)
- Penn-America Ins. Co. v. Peccadillos, Inc., 27 A.3d 259 (Pa. Super. 2011) (insurer’s duty to defend determined by four-corners comparison of complaint and policy)