This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, insured under a homeowner's insurance policy, was involved in a physical altercation with his stepdaughter in his home. The stepdaughter filed a personal injury lawsuit against the Plaintiff, alleging intentional battery and claiming serious physical and emotional injuries. The Plaintiff argued that his actions were in self-defense and unintentional. The insurance policy excluded coverage for bodily injury "expected or intended by the insured" (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, holding that the insurer acted in good faith in denying coverage and had no duty to defend or indemnify the Plaintiff (paras 1, 9-10).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the homeowner's insurance policy covered the personal injury claim because the incident arose out of self-defense. Further contended that the insurer acted in bad faith by denying a defense and indemnification (paras 1, 12).
- Defendant-Appellee: Asserted that the policy excluded coverage for intentional acts, and the allegations in the stepdaughter's complaint clearly fell outside the policy's provisions. Also argued that the Plaintiff's settlement with the stepdaughter, made without the insurer's consent, precluded indemnification (paras 1, 16-17).
Legal Issues
- Did the homeowner's insurance policy cover the personal injury claim arising from the Plaintiff's alleged self-defense?
- Did the insurer act in good faith in denying a defense and indemnification?
- Was the insurer obligated to indemnify the Plaintiff for a settlement made without its consent?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Defendant (para 18).
Reasons
Per Rudy S. Apodaca J. (Pickard CJ and Sutin J. concurring):
- The Court held that the allegations in the stepdaughter's complaint, which described intentional battery, clearly fell outside the policy's coverage for bodily injury "expected or intended by the insured." The policy did not explicitly address acts of self-defense, and the trial court found the issue immaterial to its decision (paras 12-13, 15).
- The insurer acted in good faith in denying a defense initially, as the Plaintiff's statements and the complaint did not reasonably suggest a claim of negligence or unintentional conduct that would trigger coverage. The insurer promptly assumed the defense once new facts were presented in 1995 (paras 13-14).
- The insurer was not obligated to indemnify the Plaintiff for the settlement with the stepdaughter because it was entered into without the insurer's consent, contrary to the terms of the policy. The Plaintiff's argument that the insurer waived its right to rely on the policy was rejected (paras 16-17).
The Court concluded that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the Plaintiff and acted in good faith throughout the process (para 18).