432 F.Supp.3d 587
D. Md.2020Background
- Homeowners policy issued by State Farm to Andrew and Marta Murphy (Maryland residence) included coverage for bodily injury caused by an "occurrence" defined as "an accident," and an exclusion for injury "expected or intended by the insured" or resulting from "willful and malicious acts."
- George W. Huguely V was criminally convicted of second-degree murder in the death of Yeardley Love; the estate brought a civil suit alleging Defendant caused Love’s death.
- The estate "non-suited" and then re-filed the civil case, amending the complaint to drop negligence claims and allege only assault and battery (intentional tort), plus punitive damages.
- State Farm sued for declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Huguely under the Policy, arguing the assault/battery claim is not an "accident/occurrence" and is barred by the intentional-acts exclusion.
- Earlier related litigation (Chartis) resolved that co-insurer had no duty; the court previously denied State Farm summary judgment when factual disputes existed, but after the complaint was narrowed to intentional torts State Farm moved again.
- The court granted State Farm summary judgment, holding the amended civil complaint alleges an intentional tort that is not an "accident/occurrence," so State Farm owes no duty to defend or indemnify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the assault and battery claim is an "occurrence"/"accident" under the Policy | Assault/battery is non-accidental; Policy covers only "accidents," so no coverage | (Previously) factual disputes could make the event potentially accidental; some caselaw permits subjective inquiry | Held: Assault and battery is an intentional tort by the perpetrator and not an "accident/occurrence," so no coverage |
| Applicability of intentional-acts (expected/intended/willful) exclusion | Exclusion bars coverage for intentional, willful, malicious acts alleged | (Previously) argued ambiguity and factual disputes about intent and foreseeability | Held: Because complaint alleges intentional tort, exclusion applies and further supports no duty to defend/indemnify |
| Insurer's duty to defend given the amended complaint alleging only intentional torts | No duty to defend because allegations are not potentially covered under policy terms | Defendant previously contested summary judgment, asserting genuine factual disputes; Respondents later took no position | Held: No duty to defend; doubt resolves for insured only when allegations potentially state a covered claim, which here they do not |
| Need to address cooperation/prejudice and other coverage defenses | State Farm reserved other defenses but limited motion to "accident/occurrence" and exclusion | Defendant earlier raised cooperation/prejudice issues; court previously found disputes precluded summary judgment on those grounds | Held: Court resolved case on the accident/intentional-tort ground and did not reach cooperation/prejudice; State Farm entitled to declaration of no duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheets v. Brethren Mut. Ins. Co., 342 Md. 634 (1996) (adopts subjective standard: negligent acts unforeseen by insured can be "accidents")
- Cole v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 359 Md. 298 (2000) (distinguishes victim-perspective analyses; intentional tort by tortfeasor is not an "accident")
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Treas, 254 Md. 615 (1969) (earlier case applying an objective foreseeability inquiry to the accident question)
- Harleysville Mut. Cas. Co. v. Harris & Brooks, Inc., 248 Md. 148 (1967) (discusses accident/negligence analysis under liability policies)
- Walk v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 382 Md. 1 (2004) (clarifies duty to defend is broader than duty to indemnify)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Pryseski, 292 Md. 187 (1982) (sets two-part inquiry for duty-to-defend: policy coverage and whether complaint allegations potentially fit coverage)
- Trustgard Ins. Co. v. Collins, 942 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 2019) (discusses justiciability concerns for declaratory judgments about duty to indemnify)