The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirming a district court's decision, has ruled that an insurance company did not have to defend its insured in a personal injury lawsuit for injuries he had caused while he was voluntarily intoxicated.
The Case
Carly Kogler sued Daniel Frank for injuries he allegedly caused her by grabbing and pulling her hair from behind with such force that she was lifted from the ground, before dragging her through the grass toward a grove of trees.
Frank pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Ms. Kogler sued him and obtained a default judgment against him.
She then sued State Farm General Insurance Company, which had issued homeowner's and umbrella insurance policies to Frank. Ms. Kogler contended that the "loss" caused by Frank was covered under the "accident" and the "personal injury" provisions of the State Farm insurance policies it had issued to him, that State Farm had breached its duties to defend and indemnify Frank by declining to do so as to Ms. Kogler's claims against him, and, therefore, that State Farm was liable for the default judgment that she had obtained against him.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of State Farm, and Ms. Kogler appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit's Decision
The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
In its decision, the circuit court ruled that Frank's acts did not constitute an "accident" under either of the State Farm policies because, under California law, an "accident" was an "unexpected" or "unforeseen" happening.
The circuit court added that whether Frank had intended to harm Ms. Kogler was "irrelevant" because "he intended to commit the acts that caused her injuries."
In addition, the Ninth Circuit continued, the State Farm umbrella policy excluded coverage for personal injuries "when the insured acts with specific intent to cause any harm." The circuit court said that Frank's guilty pleas to general intent crimes did not alone establish that he had intended to cause injuries to Ms. Kogler, but it found that the stipulated facts revealed that he had acted intentionally and willfully, which was evidence that he had intended to cause her harm.
Significantly, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Frank's voluntary intoxication and inebriated state did not negate his specific intent, declaring that "volitional incapacity caused by voluntary intoxication" did not negate an insured's specific intent under California law.
Accordingly, the circuit court concluded that the umbrella policy excluded State Farm's coverage of Frank's acts.
The case is Kogler v. State Farm General Ins. Co., No. 18-15298 (9th Cir. Oct. 15, 2019).
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].