The Intentional Acts Exclusion

In personal injury cases, it’s important to know if the person you’re suing has insurance to cover the costs. If they do, they’ll have a lawyer paid for by the insurance, and you’re more likely to get a big settlement if you win. In cases where someone hurt you on purpose, their insurance might not cover it, so it’s harder to get money from them. When looking at insurance coverage for intentional actions, there are a few important things to consider. The exclusion may not apply to every part of the policy, and it may only apply to the person who committed the intentional act, not others involved. There is also a distinction between intending to do something and intending to cause harm. In Florida, there has been some confusion about whether both are required to trigger the exclusion. Most courts say that both are necessary. Additionally, if the harm caused is different from what was originally intended, the court will look at the scope of intent to see if the exclusion applies. Sometimes there is a disagreement about how much an intended act needs to match the actual harm that was caused. In a case called Swindal, the court said that the person who pointed a loaded gun at someone didn’t necessarily intend to pull the trigger. They saw the shooting as a mistake that happened at the same time as the intentional act of pointing the gun. But in another case, Bosson, the court said that a purse snatcher who hurt someone while driving away meant to harm the victim as part of the crime. This can be confusing because it seems like two different rules are being used. The court is confused about how specific someone’s intention to harm needs to be in accidental gun discharge cases. In one case, the court didn’t decide if the person meant to shoot the gun, while in another case, the court said that just trying to scare someone with a gun wasn’t enough to mean the person intended for a gunshot wound to happen. It seems like the person has to at least intend for the type of harm that happens, but maybe not how bad the harm is. And if someone means to hurt one person but accidentally hurts someone else, it might not count as intentional harm for insurance purposes. If someone is mentally ill, drunk, or a minor, they may argue that they didn’t mean to harm someone and should still be covered by insurance. But in Florida, the courts have said that if the person was still able to understand their actions and the consequences, the intentional acts exclusion still applies. So, being mentally ill, drunk, or a minor doesn’t change that. If you intentionally harm someone or do something on purpose that causes harm, your insurance probably won’t cover it. This includes acts of self-defense, where you hurt someone because you believe they were going to hurt you. However, if your insurance policy specifically says it covers intentional acts in self-defense, then you might still be covered. If you and someone else both agree to do something, but you end up hurting them on purpose, your insurance might not cover that either. In Florida, the law on these issues is kind of messy, so the best way to protect yourself and your insurance coverage is for the insurance company to defend you while they figure out if they have to cover the claim, and maybe go to court to get a judge to decide. Exclusions in insurance policies can generally fall into two categories: traditional intentional act exclusions and newer “reasonably expected” exclusions. Personal injury and advertising injury coverage forms usually do not require an “occurrence” and usually do not contain an intentional acts exclusion. Most insurance policies do not define the term “accident,” and courts are in disagreement about how it should be defined for insurance coverage. In some cases, if an employee does something bad while they are at work, their insurance might still cover it. For example, if a bus driver hits someone who is getting in their way, or a waiter hits a customer who won’t pay their bill, the insurance might still pay for the damage. However, if the employee does something on purpose, like intentionally hurting someone or being inappropriate at work, the insurance might not cover it. The court cases discussed in the passage are about whether insurance companies have to cover injuries that happen because of intentional acts. Some courts said that the intentional act exclusion in the insurance policy only applies if the person meant to cause harm, while others said it applies if the person meant to do the act, even if they didn’t mean to cause harm. It’s a complicated issue that has been argued in different court cases. In a court case called State Auto Mutual Insurance Co. v. Scroggins, the court decided that it doesn’t matter if someone accidentally causes a serious injury – the insurance still has to cover it. This decision was approved by the supreme court. Other cases have also shown that the intent to harm is assumed in cases of child sexual abuse, even if the person has a mental disability. In some cases, it doesn’t matter if the person meant to cause harm – if a reasonable person would expect injury to result from their actions, their insurance won’t cover it. There are also cases where insurance companies can ask a court for a ruling on whether they have to cover a claim that includes both intentional harm and negligence. Tracy Raffles Gunn is a lawyer who specializes in insurance coverage cases. This information was submitted by the Trial Lawyers Section. Our goal is to teach our members about doing their duty and serving the public. We also want to make the justice system better and improve the study of law.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-intentional-acts-exclusion/