Insurance Companies Cannot Deny Coverage on Basis of Intentional Act Exclusion in Every Circumstance

Overcoming insurance limitations in cases involving crime victims where there is an element of intentional harm is one of the many hurdles that injured parties face when litigating these types of cases. Across the country, numerous courts have upheld the theory that when a general commercial liability policy contains ambiguous wording, the benefit of such a finding ought to go in favor of the insured and therefore afford them insurance coverage. However, insurance companies have been fighting back by including an extraordinary number of coverage exclusions in their liability policies, including the "assault and battery exclusion."

There is hope where the policy does not contain that language but only contains "intentional acts". In those situations, the exclusion clause is much more exposed to ambiguity permitting the courts to find exceptions or factual allegations that will oblige insurance companies to defend the insured.

Fortunately, Pennsylvania is one of those jurisdictions that takes a more "enlightened" view in favor the insured, and thereby, allowing coverage for incidents involving intentional harms.

Most recently, in August 2008 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied an appeal and affirmed the holding of the Superior Court in QBE Insurance Corp. v. M&S Landis Corp. that an insurance company has the duty to defend the owners of a nightclub where bouncers killed a patron in the process of ejecting him from the premises.

Name:

Phone:

Email:

What is your question?

The Monahan Law Practice
300 North Pottstown Pike
Suite 210
Exton, PA 19341-2233

Phone: (610) 363-3888
Fax: (610) 363-2429