Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Barco, 1:10-cv-00501

Diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 providing federal subject matter over the declaratory action.
Barco arrived uninvited to a birthday party at the Garcias' home, fought with attendees, brandished a loaded gun, and fired at the crowd from a car.
Stefancic was struck by a bullet; Barco was later convicted of two counts of attempt to commit murder and one count of menacing with a deadly weapon.
Stefancic filed a civil negligence claim in Colorado state court; Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company issued Barco’s renter’s and auto insurance and sought a declaration of its duties.
Colorado law requires the insurer’s duty to defend to be triggered by allegations that could fall within policy coverage; policy exclusions may bar coverage.
The court held that the renter’s and automobile policies contain exclusions for intentional acts, which are implicated by the underlying incident, leading to no duty to defend or indemnify.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do renter’s policy exclusions bar coverage?	Garrison argues the intentional acts exclusion precludes coverage.	Barco/Stefancic contend some coverage may still apply depending on phrasing.	Yes; renter’s policy excludes coverage for the incident.
Do automobile policy exclusions bar coverage?	Garrison argues the intentional acts exclusion excludes coverage for the incident.	Barco/Stefancic contend potential coverage under other provisions.	Yes; automobile policy excludes coverage for the incident.
Is there a duty to defend or indemnify Barco on Count I?	Garrison contends no duty to defend or indemnify given exclusions.	Barco/Stefancic contend there may be a defense obligation if exclusions do not apply.	GRANTED IN PART; no duty to defend or indemnify on Count I due to exclusions.

Hecla Mining Co. v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 811 P.2d 1083 (Colo. 1991) (duty to defend depends on potential coverage and contract interpretation)
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Johnson, 816 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1991) (policy terms interpreted for plain and ordinary meaning)
Bertagnolli v. Association of Trial Lawyers Assurance, 934 P.2d 916 (Colo. App. 1997) (interpretation of insurance contract in Colorado)
Colorado Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Snowbarger, 934 P.2d 909 (Colo. App. 1997) (contract interpretation and policy exclusions)
Carroll v. CUNA Mutual Insurance Society, 894 P.2d 746 (Colo. 1995) (plain and ordinary meaning of terms in insurance contracts)
Chacon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 788 P.2d 748 (Colo. 1990) (enforcement of clear exclusions in insurance policies)
Kane v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 768 P.2d 678 (Colo. 1989) (interpretation of exclusions and coverage boundaries)
Bohrer v. Church Mutual Insurance Co., 965 P.2d 1258 (Colo. 1998) (policy language governs exclusionary scope)
Union Insurance Co. v. Houtz, 883 P.2d 1057 (Colo. 1994) (contract interpretation principle in insurance disputes)
Simon v. Shelter General Insurance Co., 842 P.2d 236 (Colo. 1992) (interpretation of insurance contracts and exclusions)