Home Insurance May Cover Jealous Husband's Attack on Third Party

Will Homeowners' Insurance Cover This?

Miller survived, but suffered serious injuries, and his medical bills exceeded half a million dollars. He and his wife sued Bobby and Kim Roberts.

Kim — by this time divorced from Bobby — sought defense and indemnification from Allstate Insurance, with which she and Bobby had a homeowners' insurance policy protecting them from liability for “occurrences” at their home. The policy defined an “occurrence” as “an accident … resulting in bodily injury … arising from the ownership, maintenance or use of the residential premises.”

As a precaution, Allstate provided an attorney for Kim, but also sought a declaratory judgment stating that it was not contractually liable. The trial court noted that the insurance policy did not specifically define the word, “accident,” but pointed to Owners Ins. Co. v. James, 295 F. Supp. 2D 1354 (2003), for the notion that an accident is “an unintended happening rather than one occurring through intention or design.” That court also cited to cases in which insurers were found not responsible for providing coverage when an insured shot someone else. It sided with Allstate after concluding that the shooting was not an accident but a deliberate criminal act perpetrated by Bobby, so the insurer was relieved of any responsibility for defending or indemnifying Kim. She appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed after finding that the trial court asked the wrong question when deciding on the motion for summary judgment. It is not whether the action that caused the damage was accidental; instead, as the Millers had argued, the question should have been whether the person who purchased the insurance (Kim) did not expect or foresee the action (Bobby's unexpected visit) happening. In other words, as stated by the Millers, “[B]ecause Bobby's appearance was unforeseen by Kim and was not with[in] Kim's foresight, expectation or design, it can and should be considered an 'accident' that set into motion the chain of events from which the underlying lawsuit arises.”

So now the case returns to the trial court so that it can ask, and answer, the correct question: From Kim's perspective, was the incident within her foresight, expectation or design? The Eleventh Circuit specifically offered no guidance on how that question should be answered.

***** Janice G. Inman is Editor-in-Chief of The Matrimonial Strategist.