Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company v. Nichols
2:17-cv-03126
S.D.W. VaDec 6, 2018Background
- In October 2016, William Jackson Stuck shot and killed his daughter Sandra Kay Nichols and then shot himself (non‑fatal). He called 911 immediately, identified the victim, gave his address, described her as a "traitor," said her body was in the kitchen, and said he would shoot himself and that police could enter the back door. Police arrived and Stuck told them he had "waited on his daughter all night and he shot to kill her when she arrived."
- Stuck was the named insured on a homeowner’s policy issued by Erie that covers bodily injury from an "occurrence" but expressly excludes injury "expected or intended by anyone we protect."
- The Estate of Sandra Nichols and her daughters sued Stuck in state court alleging the killing was "reckless, intentional with malice aforethought."
- Erie filed this declaratory judgment action in federal court seeking a ruling that the intentional‑acts exclusion bars coverage and that Erie owes no duty to defend or indemnify Stuck.
- Post‑shooting psychiatric/forensic evidence: Dr. Saar found Stuck likely has dementia, was incompetent to stand trial, and could not complete testing; Dr. Saar did not opine about Stuck’s criminal responsibility or awareness at the time of the shooting.
- Erie moved for summary judgment; the three civil‑suit plaintiffs (not Stuck) cross‑moved. The court considered whether under West Virginia law Stuck had the "minimal awareness" of his act needed to trigger the intentional‑acts exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Erie’s intentional‑acts exclusion bars coverage for Stuck’s shooting of his daughter | Erie: Stuck intentionally shot his daughter and had at least minimal awareness of his act (911 call, statements to police); exclusion applies and bars duty to defend/indemnify | Defendants: Stuck was mentally incompetent/insane; exclusion should not apply when insured lacked capacity; psychiatric evidence shows incompetency | Court: Applied WV law (minimal‑awareness test). Found undisputed evidence (911 call, admissions to police) shows Stuck had minimal awareness and intended the act; intentional‑acts exclusion applies; Erie entitled to summary judgment (except against Stuck for service/default) |
| Whether any dispute of material fact precludes summary judgment on coverage | Erie: No genuine dispute—facts establish minimal awareness | Defendants: Psychiatric report creates factual dispute about awareness at the time of the act | Court: Saar’s report did not address awareness at shooting; objective contemporaneous statements are dispositive; no genuine issue of material fact on minimal awareness; summary judgment for Erie |
| Whether Erie is entitled to default judgment against Stuck for failure to appear/service | Erie: alternatively seeks default judgment against Stuck | Defendants: (implicit) service improper or insufficient | Court: Denied default—service on a guardian ad litem appointed in state case did not satisfy federal service requirements; no default against Stuck |
Key Cases Cited
- Mun. Mut. Ins. Co. of W. Va. v. Mangus, 191 W. Va. 113, 443 S.E.2d 455 (W. Va. 1994) (adopts "minimal awareness" standard for applying intentional‑acts exclusion when insured has mental illness)
- Farmers & Mechanics Mut. Ins. Co. of W. Va. v. Cook, 210 W. Va. 394, 557 S.E.2d 801 (W. Va. 2001) (intentional‑act exclusion requires insured intended the specific resulting damage; intent is judged subjectively)
- Johnson v. Insurance Co. of North Am., 232 Va. 340, 350 S.E.2d 616 (Va. 1986) (discusses construction of exclusion clauses against insurer and relevance of psychiatric evidence to awareness)