Exclusion – Intentional Acts
In some policies, assault and battery can be insurable if it results from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property. In Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 65 Cal. 2nd 263, 273 (1966), Dr. Gray intentionally struck another party in self-defense. The policy had an intentional injury exclusion that precluded coverage for “bodily injury or property damage caused intentionally by or at the direction of the insured.” The insurer contended that to defend the insured would violate the public policy. However, the insurer had attempted to limit coverage with the exclusionary clause that appeared “after a long and complicated page of fine print.” The court stated that in order for the exclusionary clause to apply, the language must be “conspicuous, plain and clear.” The court also ruled that even if the plaintiff had exceeded the reasonable bounds of self-defense, he did not commit willful and intended injury, and thus, coverage was found.
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.