Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

negligencepleamotionsummary judgmentmotion for summary judgment
negligencemotionsummary judgmentmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Puckrein v. ATI Transport, Inc., 186 N.J. 563, 897 A.2d 1034
View Case »
Helling v. Carey, 83 Wash.2d 514, 519 P.2d 981, 67 A.L.R.3d 175
View Case »
Harris v. Kreutzer, 271 Va. 188, 624 S.E.2d 24
View Case »
Rodime PLC v. Seagate Technology, Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1429
View Case »
Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 17,894, 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 250
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Tully, Not Reported in Atl. Rptr., 2014 WL 6843657, 59 Conn. L. Rptr. 181

Facts

State Farm filed a complaint against Mark Tully and Child Doe, who alleged that Tully sexually assaulted her while intoxicated at Winding Trails Park. Tully was previously insured under a homeowner's policy with State Farm, which denied coverage based on the nature of the allegations. Tully pleaded no contest to charges related to the incident, and State Farm sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify him in the ongoing civil suit.

State Farm alleges the following facts. Child Doe filed an amended complaint on August 6, 2013, in which she alleges that on July 2, 2012, her and her two friends were in the shower area of Winding Trails Park in Farmington, Connecticut when Tully approached them in an intoxicated state.

Issue

Does State Farm have a duty to defend or indemnify Mark Tully in the underlying negligence suit alleging sexual assault, given his claim of voluntary intoxication?

Does State Farm have a duty to defend or indemnify Mark Tully in the underlying negligence suit alleging sexual assault, given his claim of voluntary intoxication?

Rule

An insurer's duty to defend is broader than its duty to indemnify and is determined by the allegations in the underlying complaint. If any allegation falls within the coverage, the insurer must defend, but if the claim is excluded under the policy, the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify.

An insurer's duty to defend, being much broader in scope and application than its duty to indemnify, is determined by reference to the allegations contained in the [underlying] complaint …

Analysis

The court analyzed the language of the insurance policy and the nature of the allegations against Tully. It determined that the presumption of intent to harm applies in cases of sexual assault, and Tully's voluntary intoxication does not negate this presumption. The court concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding Tully's intent, as the allegations clearly fell under the policy's exclusion for expected or intended acts.

The court first looks at the language of the Policy. … The question becomes whether intoxication creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding intent in the context of an insurer's duty to defend in a case of sexual assault of a minor.

Conclusion

The court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment, concluding that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Tully in the underlying suit.

The court grants State Farm's motion for summary judgment.

Who won?

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company prevailed in the case because the court found that Tully's actions fell under the policy's exclusion for intentional acts, and his intoxication did not rebut the presumption of intent.

State Farm seeks a declaration that Child Doe's claim does not give rise to a duty to defend Tully, and a declaration that the suit does not give rise to a duty to indemnify Tully.

You must be