469_C331
STABBING
ATTACK EXCLUDED UNDER HO POLICY
|
Homeowner |
Intentional Act |
In June
2005, Meghan Laporta
invited Jeffrey Ramsey, with whom she was involved in a romantic relationship,
into her apartment. Without provocation, Ramsey stabbed himself and Laporta with a kitchen knife. Laporta
filed a negligence action against Ramsey. In her complaint she alleged that,
because he suffered from mental and psychiatric disorders, Ramsey did not
understand the nature of what he was doing when he stabbed her.
At the time
of the assault, Ramsey was insured under a Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance
Company homeowners policy issued to his parents,
Franklin and Rachel Ramsey. The policy contained an exclusion that
stated: “Coverage E-Personal Liability and Coverage F-Medical Payments to
Others do not apply to ‘bodily injury’ ... [a]rising out of sexual molestation,
corporal punishment or physical or mental abuse...” The policy defined “bodily
injury” as “bodily harm, sickness or disease, including required care, loss of
services and death that results.” The policy did not define “sexual
molestation,” “corporal punishment,” or “physical or mental abuse.” Citing this
exclusion,
On appeal, Laporta argued that the term “physical abuse” in the policy
exclusion implicitly required intent. According to Laporta,
because Ramsey did not intend or expect to harm her, the exclusion did not
apply. The Appellate Court of Connecticut disagreed. It found that the
exclusion expressly exempted coverage for bodily injury arising out of physical
abuse. According to the court, Laporta’s reading of
the policy was “plainly unreasonable.” The court concluded that the stabbing
clearly constituted physical abuse within the meaning of the policy.
The
judgment of the lower court was affirmed.
Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company vs. Ramsey-No. 30245-Appellate Court of
Connecticut-November 3, 2009-982 Atlantic Reporter 2d 195