From IRMI Personal Lines Pilot, Case of the Month, “Insurer Not Liable for Alcohol-Fueled Family Injury”
As the year ends, it brings a time for families to gather, celebrate, and share in holiday cheer. A recent Georgia case, however, cautions that insurance may not cover a family strife-related loss caused by overindulgence in holiday cheer. A federal court in Georgia ruled that a woman’s lawsuit against her father-in-law should be funded by the father-in-law, not his insurers’ pockets. The case is Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. O’Neill, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159927 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 8, 2013).
After a night of drinking, John O’Neill and his daughter-in-law Jessica were in an altercation in the front seat of John’s pickup truck. According to Jessica, an intoxicated Mr. O’Neill placed her in a headlock, hit her on the head, choked her, and shoved her out of the front seat of his pickup truck. Following the incident, Jessica sued Mr. O’Neill, alleging that his actions were intentional, willful, and malicious. She also contended that his conduct was criminal and that the act of getting drunk was itself negligent. Mr. O’Neill sought coverage from his homeowners and auto insurers.
The court ruled that neither of Mr. O’Neill’s insurance policies provided coverage. The court explained that Ms. O’Neill’s lawsuit alleged intentional and criminal conduct that was “clearly” not within the homeowners policy’s coverage for accidental conduct. Instead, his conduct fell within the intentional injury and criminal act exclusions. Mr. O’Neill argued that his daughter-in-law’s allegations of negligence brought her suit within coverage. The court disagreed, explaining that the nature of the alleged conduct governs coverage, not the label a plaintiffs ascribes to it. Thus, characterizing the alleged assault and battery as negligent did not alter the intentional and criminal nature of the conduct for insurance purposes.
Turning to the auto policy, the court ruled that the auto insurer also owed no coverage. O’Neill argued that the location of the alleged conduct — in the front seat of his pickup truck — brought the lawsuit within the policy’s coverage for injuries arising from the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the truck. The court disagreed, explaining that the truck was merely the situs of the attack. There was no “causal connection” between the ownership, maintenance, or use of the truck and the alleged injuries. As such, the court ruled that any recovery by Jessica “will have to come from her father-in-law’s pocket and not his insurance companies’.”
This case touches on a variety of coverage issues related to homeowners and personal auto insurance. The court recognized that in-law against in-law suits are rare but that, when insurance is potentially involved, anything is possible. The decision is a refreshing example that common sense can still win the day in insurance coverage disputes. The case also serves as a reminder to enjoy the holidays responsibly and safely.
Patrick B. Omilian, Esq. of Goldberg Segalla, LLP, New York, wrote the case of the month summary.
Copyright © 2013 International Risk Management Institute, Inc. (IRMI). All rights reserved.
IRMI provides a broad array of reference materials and educational programs supporting the insurance industry.
Leave a Reply