It is well settled law that an insurance carrier must provide a defense to its insured whenever allegations, liberally construed, suggest a reasonable possibility of coverage. However, insurance policies typically contain various policy exclusions, including one for expected or intended injuries.

In the recent case of Fiduciary Insurance Company of America v. Dok Chu Yi et ano., the plaintiff insurance company disclaimed coverage to the defendant, its insured, on the ground that the injury in the underlying claim was excluded from its policy because it was expected or intended. In the underlying claim, an altercation took place between the insured, a livery cab driver, and the plaintiff-passenger. After arguing for a while, the passenger sprawled her body across the hood of the cab, and the insured proceeded to drive the car in reverse, albeit at a slow speed, in order to remove her from the front of the vehicle.

In determining whether the intentional/expected injury exclusion applied to this claim, the Court explained that to successfully bar coverage under this exclusion, “the insurer must prove that there is no possible legal or factual basis to support a finding that, from the point of view of the insured, the bodily injuries inflicted were unexpected, unintended and unforeseen.”

The Court reasoned that an insured who moves a car in reverse in order to get a claimant off the hood should expect that the claimant will become injured. As such, the Court held that the plaintiff insurance company had no duty to provide coverage, either a defense or indemnity, on behalf of the defendant in the underlying action.

When analyzing a claim to determine whether this intentional injury exclusion will apply, it is critical to ask whether the harm that resulted could have been anything other than harm “intentionally caused” within the meaning of the policy exclusion.

Thanks to Jeremy Seeman for his contribution to this post. For any questions please contact ">.