Hale v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co.
51 So. 3d 1169
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Doris Wohl sued Hale and Segal for defamation, tortious interference with contract, civil assault, and civil battery, alleging she was falsely accused of dangerous, psychotic, deranged, and thievish conduct to employer, attorney, and police.
- Hale and Segal each carried separate homeowners’ policies with State Farm; Hale also carried a personal liability umbrella policy with State Farm that defined personal injury to include defamation and limited coverage for intentional acts.
- State Farm filed a declaratory judgment action to determine the duty to defend or indemnify Hale and Segal under the policies, later moving for final summary judgment.
- The trial court held State Farm had no duty to defend or indemnify because the complaint alleged intentional acts.
- The issue on appeal was whether State Farm had a duty to defend Hale under the umbrella policy, and whether the loss could be covered given the intentional acts exception.
- The Fourth District held homeowners coverage did not apply, but the umbrella policy could impose a duty to defend depending on whether Hale acted intentionally or negligently, which is a juried fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to defend under umbrella policy | Hale seeks defense under umbrella policy for defamation and related claims. | State Farm argues no duty to defend because injuries defined as loss arise only from accidental personal injury. | There is a potential duty to defend Hale under the umbrella policy; remand for facts to determine intent. |
| Scope of coverage for defamation under umbrella policy | Defamation falls within personal injury and may be covered unless intentional harm is proven. | Policy excludes coverage when the insured acts with specific intent to cause harm. | Defamation can be within coverage; factual questions about intent require jury determination. |
| Effect of underlying complaint on defense obligation | Complaint could bring Hale within coverage if allegations amount to negligent or unintentional conduct. | Complaint alleges intentional acts, negating defense obligation. | Based on allegations, there may be coverage; court reverses and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keen v. Fla. Sheriffs' Self-Ins. Fund, 962 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (duty to defend based on underlying complaint; broader than indemnity)
- MCO Envtl., Inc. v. Agric. Excess & Surplus Ins. Co., 689 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (if complaint could bring insured within coverage, insurer must defend entire suit)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2000) (construction of policy language; ambiguity resolved in favor of insured)
- Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Gold Coast Marine Distrib., Inc., 771 So.2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (ambiguous exclusions construed against insurer)
- Allenby & Assocs., Inc. v. Crown St. Vincent Ltd., 8 So.3d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (de novo review of final summary judgment and policy interpretation)