Self-defense and homeowners' insurance
The New York Law Journal reports a NY appellate case on the topic. The insured shot an intruder in his house, was charged, plead self-defense, and jury acquitted him. The intruder's estate then sued him civilly. The appellate court held that his insurer had no duty to defend him, since the policy excluded coverage for intentional, rather than negligent, acts (to be precise, it excluded act "expected or intended" by the insured). The article notes that courts around the country have split on this issue.
An insurance company refusing to spend money to protect a customer? Say it ain't so. Taking self-defense out of it, it is a "smart" business move for the insurance industry....it costs them less $....doesn't mean I agree with it.
Posted by: C.A.G. at September 16, 2005 02:18 PM