An appellate court in New York, affirming a trial court's decision, has ruled that an insurer had a duty to defend its insured in connection with a lawsuit claiming that the insured had engaged in “intentional and criminal” actions when he had “assault[ed]” the underlying plaintiff by shooting him in the abdomen.
The Case
Derek Prindle sued John Guzy, alleging that Mr. Guzy had “assault[ed] [Mr. Prindle] … by shooting [Mr. Prindle] in the abdomen” and that as a result of the “assault,” Mr. Prindle had sustained personal injuries. Mr. Prindle's complaint also alleged that Mr. Guzy had been arrested and criminally charged with assault, but did not further specify as to the upshot of this criminal charge.
Mr. Guzy tendered the defense of Mr. Prindle's action to New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, which had issued homeowners' and umbrella insurance policies to Mr. Guzy.
New York Central disclaimed coverage and Mr. Guzy filed an action seeking a judgment declaring that New York Central had a duty to defend him in the action brought by Mr. Prindle. Mr. Guzy moved for summary judgment.
The trial court granted his motion for summary judgment, and New York Central appealed. It argued that Mr. Guzy's shooting of Mr. Prindle had been intentional, thereby bringing it outside the ambit of the homeowners' insurance policy as it was not an occurrence (defined as an accident) and also within the exclusion in the umbrella policy that barred coverage for “expected or intended” conduct.
The Appellate Court's Decision
The appellate court affirmed.
In its decision, it explained that, inasmuch as an assault “may derive from an individual's recklessness or criminal negligence,” a “reasonable possibility” existed that Mr. Guzy's actions had not been intentional.
The appellate court acknowledged that Mr. Prindle's complaint had described Mr. Guzy's actions as “intentional and criminal,” and said that that was “relevant” in determining whether New York Central's duty to defend existed. It declared, however, that “such [a] conclusory allegation drafted by a third party” was “not the focal point.”
The appellate court then ruled that because the shooting could be “reasonably interpreted as having stemmed from [Mr. Guzy's] unintentional conduct,” New York Central's duty to defend had been triggered under the homeowners' policy.
It concluded that, for “similar reasons,” New York Central had not established that the allegations in Mr. Prindle's complaint “in toto” were subject to no other interpretation than that Mr. Guzy had “expected or intended” the resulting harm.
The case is Guzy v. New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (N.Y. App.Div. 3d Dep't Jan. 12, 2017). Attorneys involved include: Gozigian, Washburn & Clinton, Cooperstown (Edward W. Garo Gozigian of counsel), for appellant.
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].