INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO COVER INJURIES FROM INTENTIONAL ACT

Personal Automobile

Intentional Act

On June 10, 2004, Joshua Thomas was driving his father’s car when he crossed a double yellow line and collided head-on with a car driven by William Hammer. Both cars rolled over as a result of the impact. Hammer suffered multiple serious injuries; Thomas suffered a head laceration.

In an effort to determine what had happened, the police interviewed Thomas at the hospital. Thomas admitted that before he began driving, he was arguing with his parents about whether he was taking his medication for paranoid schizophrenia. He admitted that he was “driving recklessly.” He then stated that when he saw Hammer’s car coming from the opposite direction, he let go of the steering wheel. When the police officer asked him why, he stated that he “wanted to hit the other vehicle” and that he “wanted to end it all.” The accident was classified as an attempted suicide.

Later, Thomas changed his story and stated that poor visibility contributed to the accident. When asked about his earlier statements, he first stated that he didn’t know whether he wanted “to hit the other vehicle,” and then he stated that he “didn’t want to hit it.”

Thomas was insured under a New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company personal automobile policy. Hammer’s insurer was Proformance Insurance Company. The New Jersey Manufacturers policy obligated the insurer to “pay damages for bodily injury or property damage for which any insured becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident.” The policy further provided that the insurer had “no duty to defend any suit or settle any claim for bodily injury or property damage not covered under this policy,” and it specifically excluded liability coverage for any insured “[w]ho intentionally causes bodily injury or property damage.”

When New Jersey Manufacturers denied coverage, citing the exclusion for intentional acts, Proformance filed a declaratory judgment action. The parties agreed to stipulated facts, including that “by letting go of the wheel, while traveling at about 65 miles per hour, there was a reasonable likelihood that Joshua would cause property damage.”

The court found that this fact reflected an intent to cause property damage. In addition, the court found that, as a practical matter, “Thomas knew he would cause more than just property damage and it was more than reasonably likely he would injure or kill himself or someone in the other vehicle, but such a finding was unnecessary in view of the stipulation that implicated the policy exclusion.” The court concluded that the intentional acts exclusion in the New Jersey Manufacturers policy precluded coverage for the claim. Proformance and Hammer appealed.

On appeal, the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed the decision of the lower court. In reaching its decision, the court noted that, once it is established that a party “subjectively intended or expected to cause some sort of injury, that intent will generally preclude coverage under a liability insurance policy containing an exclusion for intentional injury, unless there is evidence that the extent of the injuries was improbable.”

The court then evaluated the facts of the case and found that by arguing with his parents regarding whether he was taking his medications, getting into his car, and speeding on a public road, and letting go of the steering wheel after seeing a car traveling toward him, Thomas subjectively intended to cause some degree of injury to Hammer. Thus the New Jersey Manufacturers policy exclusion applied.

The decision of the lower court in favor of New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company was affirmed.

Hammer vs. Thomas-Superior Court of New Jersey-August 9, 2010-2010 WL 3075330