Is a fatal overdose considered an 'accident' for purposes of liability insurance coverage?
The plaintiff, Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Co., moved for summary judgment in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
In a matter of first impression, a federal judge denied an insurance company’s motion for summary judgment as key questions remain when considering whether a fatal drug overdose is considered an “accident” for purposes of a liability insurance policy.
The plaintiff, Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Co., moved for summary judgment in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on the issue of its duty to defend Imran Iqbal and Mohammed Iqbal in an underlying wrongful death case.
In the underlying matter, Jean Claude Migneault, the administrator of the estate of Elle Migneault, alleges that Imran Iqbal used his position as an employee at Sam’s Food Mart “to procure illegal drugs” and provide them to Elle Migneault, who suffered a fatal overdose. Mohammed Iqbal, who operated Sam’s Food Stores, is accused of hiring Imran Iqbal and failing to identify and prevent such illegal drug activity from happening at the store, according to Judge Janet Bond Arterton’s opinion filed Monday.
Sam’s Food Store has a commercial liability policy through Acceptance, which provides coverage for “bodily injury” and “property damage” if “they are caused by an ‘occurrence,’ which the policy defines as ‘an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,’” according to the opinion.
Acceptance argues that Imran Iqbal’s actions were outside the policy coverage because he “knowingly and purposefully provided Elle Migneault with illegal substances.” Citing the Connecticut Supreme Court’s 2016 opinion in State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Tully, Acceptance argued that Imran Iqbal’s actions ”would be intentional conduct under the law … that is so inherently harmful that the resulting damage is unarguably foreseeable, allowing this court to infer the necessary harmful intent,” the opinion said.
In response, Jean Claude Migneault claims that Tully is distinguishable from the present case. In Tully, the insurance company brought an action for declaratory judgment against the insured, who argued that his conduct in sexually assaulting children was not intentional because he was intoxicated. In the present matter, the Migneault defendant argues that ”[i]t is also plausible that defendant Imran Iqbal did not realize what he was providing to Elle Migneault was lethal or even potentially lethal” and that her death may still be accidental depending on these facts at trial, the opinion said.
“There is no precedent in Connecticut directly addressing whether causing another person’s death by providing them with illegal drugs is considered an ‘accident’ for purposes of a liability insurance policy, and courts have varied their approach to that question of evaluating what kind of negligence may nevertheless be considered intentional rather than an accident. See Colony Ins. v. Walnut Beach, LLC, (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 25, 2010) (‘the court observes that there does not appear to be agreement—within Connecticut or the many jurisdictions—as to whether harm caused by a simple act of ordinary negligence allegedly committed by the insured will constitute an ‘accident’ and therefore an ‘occurrence’ in any given instance’). Because the question has not yet been resolved by Connecticut courts, this Court must ‘construe the Policy as it believes the Connecticut Supreme Court would were it to have the occasion to do so,” Arterton wrote.
In some instances involving inherently harmful conduct where injury is a natural consequence, state courts have held that negligent conduct will not be considered an “accident” even if the harm was not specifically intended. In 2018, the Connecticut Superior Court held in Rodrigue v. Patrons Mut. Ins. Co. of Connecticut that “a wrongful assault that caused more harm than expected was not accidental because the actions were ‘inherently harmful,’” the opinion said.
However, the Superior Court held in its 2009 opinion in Fuentes v. New London Cnty. Mut. Ins. that “negligent misrepresentations are not intentional conduct and thus constitute accidents.” In 2006, the Connecticut Superior Court held in Steadfast Ins. v. Purdue Frederick that “harm caused by Oxycontin was not ‘expected or intended’ harm because ‘conduct carried out with knowledge of a risk of injury, is not, and has not been recognized legally in New York or Connecticut as the same as intentionally caused injury,’” the opinion said.
“A distillation of the precedent on this topic leaves the Court with the following principle: death caused by a drug overdose will only be an expected or intended harm if either the provision of drugs is so ‘inherently harmful’ that death by overdose would be a natural consequence, or Imran Iqbal had actual knowledge that the drugs were harmful enough that Elle Migneault might perish as a result of taking them,” Arterton wrote.
However, at this stage in the litigation, the court agreed with defendant Migneault that some of the facts, including what kinds of drugs were provided, as well as the quantity and under what circumstances, still need to be answered. Finding there to still be genuine issues of material fact in dispute, Arterton denied the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment for both Iqbal defendants.
“The allegation in this case is that Mohammad Iqbal ‘knew or should have known that Imran Iqbal utilized The Store to conduct illegal activities, including the purchase and distribution of illegal drugs, yet failed to take steps to prevent the same’ thus leaves open the possibility that even if Imran Iqbal’s conduct was intentional, Mohammad Iqbal did not have actual knowledge that Imran Iqbal was planning to and did provide Elle Migneault with illegal drugs, but instead merely ‘failed to install and maintain appropriate security at [Sam's Food Store] so as to deter or prevent illegal activity, including the purchase and distribution of illegal drugs,’” Arterton wrote.
John W. Cannavino Jr., a partner at Ryan Ryan Deluca’s Stamford office, represents the insurance company.
Steven A. Ouellette, an attorney at William C. Charamut Attorney at Law in Rocky Hill, represents the Migneault defendant, while Darnell D. Crosland, of The Crosland Law Group in Stamford, represents both Iqbal defendants.
Messages seeking comments from the attorneys were not immediately returned.