New Hampshire Indemnity Co. v. Scott
910 F. Supp. 2d 1341
M.D. Fla.2012Background
- NHIC insureds Scott and his father’s pickup under a policy excluding intentional injury; policy does not define an auto accident.
- October 22, 2005: Scott forcibly snatched Sarah Edwards’s purse with a pickup, dragging her and causing permanent brain injury.
- November 10, 2005: Scott pled guilty to robbery and felony battery; underlying suit later alleged negligence by shopping-center owner for security.
- October 2009–March 2011: NHIC sent reservation-of-rights letters; NHIC settled the father’s liability for the policy limit; NHIC filed suit for declaratory judgment on April 29, 2011.
- Underlying judgment against Scott emerged: over $69 million in damages; issue presented is whether NHIC has a duty to defend/indemnify Scott for these injuries under the policy.
- Court holds: policy excludes coverage for intentional injury; the incident is not an auto accident; public policy and precedent support no duty to indemnify; NHIC granted summary judgment; others’ motions denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the exclusion for intentional injury bar coverage? | NHIC: intentional injury excludes coverage. | Scott/NH guardian: ambiguity or coverage possible if no specific intent to injure. | Yes, exclusion applies; no coverage. |
| Is the injury an auto accident under the policy? | NHIC: not an auto accident; intent and conduct show purposeful attack. | Scott argues broader 'occurrence' could include accident. | No; not an auto accident. |
| Does Florida public policy preclude indemnity for intentional torts? | NHIC: public policy supports denying coverage for own intentional misconduct. | Scott: policy should cover under neutral interpretation. | Public policy supports non-coverage. |
| Do CTC Development or PCR compel a different outcome? | NHIC: those decisions do not convert intentional act into an accident. | Scott: these cases require broader accident interpretation. | No, they do not override precedent preventing coverage. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Fire & Cas. v. CTC Development, 720 So.2d 1072 (Fla.1998) (definition of accident; exclusions for intentional acts read in pari materia)
- Travelers Indem. v. PCR, Inc., 889 So.2d 779 (Fla.2004) (interpretation of accident; public policy balancing deterrence and compensation)
- Bal Harbour Club, Inc. v. Bal Harbour, 549 So.2d 1005 (Fla.1989) (public policy against insuring against own intentional wrongdoing)
- Bosson v. Uderitz, 426 So.2d 1301 (Fla.2d DCA 1983) (intentional acts exclusion; robbery constitutes intentional injury)
- Spreen v. Hartford Fire Ins., 343 So.2d 649 (Fla.3d DCA 1977) (assault with intentional injury excluded under accident definition)
- Prasad v. Allstate Ins., 644 So.2d 992 (Fla.1994) (intentional torts not covered; controlling principle.)
- Stepp v. State Farm Fire & Cas., 656 So.2d 494 (Fla.1st DCA 1995) (intentional torts not covered under similar exclusions)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Caldwell, 630 So.2d 668 (Fla.4th DCA 1994) (application of accident/intentional injury framework)