The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently reversed summary judgment entered in favor of Erie Insurance Exchange in Erie’s action for a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify the Estate of Harold Eugene McCutcheon, Jr. in a personal injury action filed by Richard Carly.

In Erie Insurance Exchange v. Tracy L Moore and Harold E. McCutcheon, III, individually and as Administrators of the Estate of Hard Eugene McCutcheon, Jr. and Richard Carly, on September 26, 2013, Harold McCutcheon went to the home of his former wife, Terry L. McCutcheon, killed her, and then committed suicide.  Before McCutcheon killed himself, Richard Carly arrived unexpectedly at the home, struggled with McCutcheon, and was seriously injured by shots fired from McCutcheon’s gun.  Erie contended that the homeowners’ policies it issued to McCutcheon did not cover Carly’s injuries because McCutcheon inflicted them intentionally.  Carly contended that, as alleged in his complaint against McCutcheon’s Estate, the discharge of the gun and resulting injuries were unintentional, and Erie therefore was required to provide a defense and indemnity.

The Superior Court assessed how the policies’ terms applied to infliction of a gunshot wound during an altercation between two participants.  Despite agreeing with Erie that the repeated descriptions of McCutcheon’s conduct in Carly’s complaint as “negligent” and “careless” were merely “artful pleading” and not determinative, the Superior Court decided to reverse the Trial Court because the facts as alleged set forth a claim that McCutcheon accidentally shot Carly while he waived around his gun during their struggle.  Specifically, the facts alleged a chaotic brawl in which McCutcheon fired his gun wildly while trying to fight Carly off.

In reaching its conclusion that the alleged events fit the policies’ definitions of a covered “occurrence,” rather than conduct deliberately intended to inflict harm, the Superior Court distinguished this case from the willful assault cases, noting that no one knows what McCutcheon was thinking that night and that facts.

The Superior Court’s holding in this matter provides important insight regarding the waning applicability of the intended harm exclusion in personal injury cases.  It appears that courts are analyzing complaints with increasing scrutiny in an effort to find coverage.

Thanks to Hillary Ladov for her contribution to this post.