*1 276 General, Bowers, Leonora Attorney Attorney, Michael J.
District Grant, appellee. for v. COMPANY
45382. STATE FARM FIRE CASUALTY MORGAN. Presiding Justice. Clarke, may render a voluntary intoxication
We must decide whether expectation injuring an- person incapable forming an intent or in an exclusion a homeowner’s other so as to his act outside expectation intent and to Appeals insurance The Court of held jury. its submission to a question be a of fact and (364 62) (1987). SE2d We App. Farm &c. Co. v. 185 Ga. 377 agree. heavily conclusion, Appeals relied reaching
In the Court of Thrift-Mart, Inc. v. Commercial Union upon its earlier 397) (1980). Cos., (268 In that case the court App. 154 Ga. 344 SE2d decided in favor of the jury jury submitted the issue to the but the v. Trav Gaynor company. insurance The Court of overruled 1072) (1913). (77 Co., App. elers Ins. 12 Ga. 601 SE by State Farm began declaratory judgment This case as a action policy the insurance which ex- and asked for an by the insured. It is injuries expected cludes important here rise from contract legal to remember that issues Consequently, policy law and not or criminal law. considerations tort policy does not differ from those in tort and criminal cases. Public prevent party by more burdensome assuming contract duties party’s right to refuse the imposed than those law because of a validity to policy contract. The fact that the insurer drafts the adds this statement. uniquely pat- fits the question expectation of intent or here appropriate issues
tern of those issues of material fact which are not fact. OCGA summary judgment but are decided the trier of § (c). ability to form question 9-11-56 Even in criminal cases the question. voluntary jury intent because of intoxication can be a (277 505) (1981); State, Ely v. Blankenship v. 247 Ga. SE2d State, 66) (1981). express plain
The words of the contract and understandable meaning. limitations which overprint We decline to those words with they right fail its to express by doing deprive so exclusion, may company decide facts. If the desires broaden the courts. policy do so. But this task falls to the drafter and not to expectation of intent or simply presence here deals with and not with contributing subtracting factors to or from intent pectation.. concur, Judgment except Marshall, All Justices affirmed.
J., Bell, JJ., Weltner and who dissent. Justice, dissenting. *2 I respectfully dissent. opinion the insured, Court of recites that C. the Belt, W. “was chronically heavy who, apparently drinker without provocation, shot and killed Kevin and Susan Belt [his son] [his daughter-in-law] and then killed himself.” Farm Co. v. (1987).
The brief filed behalf of surviving the child contains the fol- lowing statement of fact:
On March Belt, Kevin Ward Belt Susan and their five-year-old son, Gregory Belt, temporarily were residing wife, with C. W. Ruby Belt, Belt homeplace and his in their Camp located on Highland in Smyrna, Georgia. Road On said date W. as C. Belt walked from his he inside house con- daughter-in-law fronted his grandson, his Belt. Gregory Gregory Susan and sitting in her automobile which was in the driveway. Belt Susan inwas the driver’s seat and Gregory was in the passenger’s front appar- seat. Without ently word, saying a W. once, Belt shot Susan Marie Belt killing her. Immediately Kevin Ward Belt came out the house and C. W. once, Belt shot killing Kevin Ward Belt him. C. W. placed Belt turned and gun his own head and killed himself with one Kevin grandchild, shot. The Belt, Gregory being frightened, jumped out of the car and ran through safety seeking woods from the rampage and carnage that occurring.
While the record establishes C. W. Belt was intoxicated at killings, time provides clarity no on what took be- parties clear, however, tween the immediately killings. before the It is that Belt did not harm or attempt five-year-old grandson. to harm his wished, Had he easily immediately could have killed him after kill- ing daughter-in-law. his
Manifestly, one who shoots and kills his son and daughter-in-law apparent provocation, without spares young grandson, of a life and then kills himself “bodily injury. has . inflicted .which pected or just intended.”1 And as Belt harm or kill intended “bodily injury property damage of insurance excluded which only grandson, is that of his conduct his he intended falls within the realm of reasonable Any daughter-in-law. other to kill his son and his conjecture, to base license and would upon mere surmise. its verdict dispute, being two homicides elements These factual law, excluded insured, should be as a matter committed coverage under the Justice Justice Marshall and state that Chief I am authorized to join in Bell this dissent. June
Decided Lynn Stephen Cotter, Hiers, L. M. Currie, McGhee Swift, appellant. Roberson, for ap- Flournoy Treadaway,
Roy III, Barnes, E. Robert E. Mike pellee. *3 v. THE STATE.
45429. ANDERSON Justice. Jeffery a hand killed Street with Juan Anderson shot and David felony gun. murder, found and was tried and He was indicted guilty of that offense. gathered people, including group Street, and A Anderson evening during had a hours. Anderson around an outdoor fire complained pointed people. handgun about at several Street that guns. weapon, telling Anderson Anderson that he was afraid empty. displayed cylinder pistol it was to demonstrate pulled pointed group and member of the When he trigger, it at another weapon discharge. pointed Street at When he did fatally injured. pulled trigger, weapon fired. Street was and day. following fled, arrested the Anderson and was case, of fact could a rational trier 1. From the evidence beyond guilty the murder reasonable doubt of have found Anderson expected insured.” 1986, 21, on Au and Anderson was indicted The crime was committed on December 17, 10, September trial gust His motion for new 1987. 1987. He was tried and convicted 6, 1987, 6, transcript the trial was filed on October 1987. On November 14, December 1987. new trial was denied on ordered filed the trial court. The motion for January oral appeal and was submitted This was docketed in this court on argument on March