In Matters Of Insurance Coverage, Every Word Has A Purpose

A fight breaks out on the insured’s front lawn, so the homeowner’s kid is engaged in a scuffle with a neighbor’s kid. The insured reports the incident as a precaution before any indication that a case may result. Subsequently, the insured receives a $10,000 healthcare bill on the parents of another kid for treatment of a detached retina, with a risk to sue the homeowner for negligent supervision in case the bill isn’t given right away. Though the claim seems in negligence, coverage (defense and/or indemnity) under the insured’s homeowner’s liability policy isn’t a certainty.

Coverage under a Montana General Liability Insurance for a case of negligent supervision is able to turn on whether the “intended injury exclusion” uses the term “the” or maybe the term “an” or maybe “any.” Undoubtedly, there’s policies today that are explicit regarding who’s talked about for physical injury triggered by an intentional act. The goal of this particular report isn’t to handle the nuances of many homeowner’s policies, and frankly, whether a vast majority of policies cover claims of negligent supervision or otherwise. This particular report is intended to highlight the point that in addressing coverage problems, every word has a job.

A common homeowner’s policy provides liability coverage for claims made against an “insured” for damages due to “bodily injury” a result of an “occurrence.” In those policies, an “occurrence” is identified as being a crash and that results to “bodily injury,” and also although “accident” is generally not defined, Texas courts have provided its meaning. Generally, “where acts are intentional and voluntary and additionally the damage may be the natural outcome of the action, the outcome wasn’t brought on by accident even though that effect might have been unintended.”, unforeseen, and unexpected Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819, 826-28 (Tex 1997).

Under the situation portrayed in the opening paragraph, the child’s deliberate act of striking another kid isn’t a crash under some definition, and as such, without liability coverage would are available to discuss almost any liability claims brought against the kid.