Heslop v. Bear River
2017 UT 5
| Utah | 2017Background
- On Oct. 6, 2014, Natalie Heslop, after overdosing on Ambien and Lexapro the prior day, drove her truck through Ogden Canyon and intentionally drove off an embankment; she survived with injuries.
- Ten days later Heslop told a Bear River adjuster her crash was "pretty much a suicide attempt" and that her "mind wasn’t right" after taking too many pills.
- Bear River denied PIP and property-damage coverage under the policy’s intentional-injury exclusion and Utah law, citing Heslop’s admissions that the crash was intentional.
- Heslops submitted letters from two doctors: Dr. Holt (psychiatrist) opined Heslop suffered serotonin syndrome after an overdose that could have caused disorientation; Dr. Crookston opined it was "highly likely" Heslop was cognitively impaired and might not have "fully appreciate[d]" or "fully control[led]" her actions.
- District court granted summary judgment for Bear River on (1) PIP and (2) property-damage claims, and denied a Rule 56(f) continuance for additional discovery. Heslops appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PIP exclusion applies where insured admitted intentional crash but alleges mental impairment | Heslop: mental disease/intoxication (serotonin syndrome, Ambien) created a genuine issue whether she could subjectively appreciate or control conduct, so injury may be "accidental" under Hoffman | Bear River: Heslop’s admissions show she intended the result; equivocal expert letters do not create a reasonable factual dispute | Affirmed: exclusion applies; doctors’ equivocal opinions insufficient to create genuine issue that she did not appreciate or could not control conduct |
| Whether property-damage coverage applies for damage to a vehicle intentionally caused by a named insured | Heslop: same mental-capacity argument; alternatively, husband Brandon argues he is an accident victim entitled to recovery | Bear River: collision was intentional by an insured; policy covers only "accidental" damage; husband is a named insured/co-owner so exclusion applies | Affirmed: summary judgment appropriate; husband’s victim argument inadequately briefed, so not considered |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying Rule 56(f) continuance for further discovery | Heslop: needed discovery into mental state, effects of serotonin syndrome and medications to oppose summary judgment | Bear River: existing record was sufficient; requested continuance was vague and speculative | Affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion because Rule 56(f) request was conclusory and suggested only cumulative or speculative discovery |
| Proper legal test for accidental vs. intentional where mental disease is alleged | Heslop: courts must apply Hoffman subjective test considering mental disease/defect | Bear River: district court relied on Miller (Michigan) that mental illness cannot negate an unequivocal intent | Held: Hoffman is the controlling Utah rule (mental disease is relevant), but here Hoffman's test still requires concrete evidence; Heslops failed to meet that evidentiary showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffman v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 669 P.2d 410 (Utah 1983) (mental disease/defect can make a result "accidental" if insured could not appreciate or control conduct)
- N.M. ex rel. Caleb v. Daniel E., 175 P.3d 566 (Utah 2008) (accident analysis focuses on whether result was intended or expected; assess consequences from insured’s perspective)
- Miller v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 553 N.W.2d 371 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996) (when evidence unequivocally shows insured intended actions, mental illness does not alter that conclusion)