A federal district court in Virginia has ruled that an insurer that issued an occupational accident insurance policy had no obligation to an insured for injuries he sustained as a result of his aggression in a fight.
The Case
Joseph Waylon Millard claimed benefits under an occupational accident insurance policy issued by Hudson Insurance Company stemming from an incident that occurred while he was making deliveries for Fleetgistics Holdings, Inc., a participating motor carrier under the Hudson policy.
Hudson sought a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to provide benefits to Mr. Millard because his injuries were the result of his aggression in a fight, which was excluded from the definition of a covered “occupational accident.”
According to Hudson, Mr. Millard's claim arose out of an altercation with another driver during which Mr. Millard acted aggressively and discharged what the other driver believed to be a firearm at him or in his direction. Thereafter, according to Hudson, Mr. Millard was injured when the other driver struck him with his vehicle while attempting to defend himself.
Hudson moved for judgment in its favor.
The District Court's Decision
The district court granted Hudson's motion.
In its decision, the district court explained that Hudson's policy expressly stated that “aggression in a fight” was excluded from the definition of “occupational accident” under the policy, and it found that Mr. Millard's injuries had been sustained as the result of his aggression in a fight with another driver.
In addition, the district court said, Mr. Millard had not sustained his injuries due to an accident but, rather, due to his intentional actions.
Thus, the district court concluded, Mr. Millard's claim arising out of the incident was excluded from coverage because it was both aggressive and non-accidental, and Hudson had no obligation to Mr. Millard for injuries he sustained in this incident under the policy.
The case is Hudson Ins. Co. v. Millard, No. 7:18-cv-8 (W.D. Va. March 25, 2019).


