Insurance 101 – Chapter 5 – Volume 39 – Self-Defense – 3

Self-Defense – 3

The only exception to the “potentiality” argument arises when the conduct is so egregious, so evil, that the intent to cause harm is inherent in the act itself. In J.C. Penney Casualty Insurance Co. v. M.K., the intent to cause harm by an act of child molestation was found to be intrinsic to the act itself. The court, while reaffirming its decision in Clemmer would not  allow insurance coverage for the child molester. The California Supreme Court concluded that a carrier may not be required to prove the insured’s “preconceived design to inflict injury” as indicated in Clemmer because that standard was limited “to the insured’s mental capacity to commit the wrongful act.”

The following video was adapted from my book, “Insurance Claims A Comprehensive Guide” Published by the National Underwriter Company and is available at the Zalma Insurance Claims Library

Legal Disclaimer

The author and publisher disclaim any liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this blog. The information provided is not a substitute for the advice of a competent insurance, legal, or other professional. The Information provided at this site should not be relied on as legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to an individual situation.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *