|
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, followed existing law in holding that acts committed by an insured in self-defense can be deemed an "accident" and therefore raise the possibility of coverage, thereby giving rise to a duty to defend.
In this coverage action, the insurer denied both indemnity and a defense to an insured who was sued for injuries inflicted by the insured on the claimant during an altercation at the insured's business. Davar Jafari was insured under a garage liability policy issued by EMC Insurance Companies ("EMC"). The policy provided coverage for "accidents" within the insuring agreements and excluded intentional or expected injury except resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property.
The insured operated a Tire & Brake Center. During the policy period, a customer approached Jafari and inquired about the readiness of the customer's vehicle, which had been brought in for repairs the night before. Jafari told the customer that his car was not ready. The customer allegedly became verbally abusive and threatened to kill Jafari. After telling the customer to "get out of his face" and starting to dial 911, Jafari punched the customer twice, cutting him above the eye. The customer brought suit against Jafari, alleging assault, battery, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, premises liability and negligent hiring.
Jafari tendered his defense to EMC. EMC denied coverage stating that Jafari acted intentionally and thus there was no insurable "accident." Jafari then brought an action against EMC, asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of EMC, and Jafari appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Jafari's conduct, although intentional, was an accident within the meaning of the policy because it was in self-defense and in response to the unexpected and unintended acts of the third party. The Court, following existing law, held that where the third party's actions provoking an insured's self-defense are an "unforeseen and unexpected element in the causal chain of events making the insured's acts in self-defense unplanned and involuntary", there is an "accident" within the coverage clause. The insurer must "take a broad view of any incident raising the question of self-defense" and not just look at the insured's actions. The provoking party's actions are an integral part of the overall incident. Thus, according to the Court, even intentional acts of self-defense in response to unexpected or unforeseen events initiated by a third party are accidents and give rise to a potential for liability.
The Court reasoned that Jafari had sufficiently demonstrated that his actions of self-defense may have been in response to the customer's unexpected attack. Whether Jafari actually acted in self-defense or used only reasonable force was a question of fact which could not be resolved in this motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
This opinion is not final. It may be withdrawn from publication, modified on rehearing or the California Supreme Court may grant review. Should any of these events take place, the opinion would be unavailable for use as authority in other cases.
Click here for opinion.
| 
