Grange Insurance v. Roberts
179 Wash. App. 739
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Grange insured Jane and Wes Roberts; Brandis (and sisters) sued Jane Roberts alleging undue influence, fraud, tortious interference with inheritance and parent-child relationships, outrage (intentional infliction of emotional distress), and defamatory statements; claims sought emotional and relationship damages.
- Grange’s policy provided Coverage H (bodily injury/property damage) and Coverage I (personal and advertising injury) but excluded intentional acts, and defined “occurrence” to require an accident.
- Roberts tendered defense; Grange defended under a reservation of rights and filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Grange, finding no duty to defend; Roberts appealed and also had a bad-faith counterclaim that was later dismissed; the appellate court affirmed.
- The court assessed whether the Brandis complaint, read liberally, conceivably alleged coverage under the policy (triggering duty to defend) or instead pleaded only intentional conduct falling within exclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roberts) | Defendant's Argument (Grange) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grange had a duty to defend under policy standard (conceivable coverage) | Complaint could be read to allege injuries that might be accidental or negligent; any ambiguity favors defense | Duty arises only if complaint conceivably alleges covered claims; exclusions for intentional acts apply | Duty-to-defend standard: insurer must defend if complaint conceivably alleges covered claims; here, no conceivable covered claims existed, so no duty to defend |
| Whether outrage (intentional infliction of emotional distress) is a covered “bodily injury”/“occurrence” | Outrage alleges severe emotional distress that could conceivably be from reckless, not intentional, conduct and thus be an accident/occurrence | Outrage is intentional or at least foreseeable from deliberate acts, so not an "accident"; policy excludes intentional acts; bodily injury excludes purely nonphysical emotional harm | Outrage not an "occurrence" because under common-law accident definition foreseeable harm from deliberate acts is not accidental; additionally, policy’s bodily-injury coverage excludes purely emotional harm unlinked to physical injury; no coverage |
| Whether tortious interference claims (expected inheritance; parent-child relationship) trigger coverage | These are novel or untested in Washington; elements uncertain and could be recognized to permit nonintentional liability, so ambiguity favors defense | Jurisdictions and Washington precedents treat these as intentional torts requiring intent; thus excluded | No duty to defend: persuasive authority and Washington law show these torts require intentional conduct; complaint pleads intentional interference, so exclusions apply |
| Whether defamation allegation triggers Coverage I or is excluded by knowledge/falsity exclusions | Complaint does not allege knowledge of falsity; statements could be negligent, so coverage might be triggered | Complaint alleges false statements made "in order to intentionally interfere" — implying intent/knowledge; policy excludes knowing violations and publications with knowledge of falsity | Held excluded: read in context complaint alleges intentional, calculated statements to injure relationships; exclusions apply and defeat duty to defend |
Key Cases Cited
- Woo v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 161 Wn.2d 43 (2007) (duty-to-defend arises if complaint conceivably alleges covered claims; ambiguous complaints construed for insured)
- Daley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 135 Wn.2d 777 (1998) (term “bodily injury” excludes purely emotional injuries unconnected to physical harm)
- Alea London, Ltd. v. American Home Assur. Co., 168 Wn.2d 398 (2010) (when state law is unsettled, persuasive out-of-state authority may create a duty to defend if ambiguity favors insured)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Butler, 118 Wn.2d 383 (1992) (common-law definition of accident: deliberate acts that foreseeably produce harm are not accidents)
- Leingang v. Pierce County Med. Bureau, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 133 (1997) (elements of intentional interference with business/economic expectancy; tort requires intentional interference)