HNRK Coverage Corner
On August 20, 2020, the Fourth Department issued a decision in Scalzo v. Central Co-op. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 04639, holding that an intentional assault was excluded from coverage under a liability policy, despite conclusory language in the complaint asserting a negligence claim in the alternative.
The plaintiff in the underlying personal injury lawsuit asserted two causes of action: the first alleged that the insured (Scalzo) assaulted the plaintiff “by seizing him, striking him and punching him in the face” and that those actions were “willful, intentional, unwarranted and without just cause or provocation”; the second alleged that Scalzo “negligently struck” the plaintiff and “acted in a reckless, careless and negligent manner.” The court concluded the “conclusory” allegations of negligence in the personal injury action were not sufficient to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend, explaining:
In assessing whether a policy exclusion for injuries “intentionally caused” by the insured applies, a court must look to the pleadings in the underlying action and limit its examination to the nature of the conduct of the insured as it is there described. The analysis depends on the facts which are pleaded, not conclusory assertions. When a complaint alleges in a conclusory manner that an assault was committed negligently, an insurer has no duty to defend where the insured does not provide evidentiary support for the conclusory characterization of the conduct as negligent or provide an explanation of how the intrinsically intentional act of assault could be negligently performed. An insured may not exalt form over substance by labeling an underlying tort action as one to recover damages for negligence where the conduct is inherently intentional.
Here, the second cause of action in the Salerno complaint contains no more than a conclusory characterization of plaintiff’s conduct as negligent without any supporting factual allegations. Thus, the complaint in the underlying action does not contain sufficient allegations of negligence to avoid the policy exclusion. Further, plaintiff failed to provide evidentiary support for the conclusory characterization of his conduct as negligent or an explanation of how the intrinsically intentional act of assault could be negligently performed. Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff intended only to punch Salerno but not to injure him, the injuries were intentionally caused inasmuch as harm was inherent in the nature of the acts alleged.
The outcome in this case is in tension with the general proposition that an insurer’s duty to defend is “exceedingly broad” and can be avoided only when “the allegations of the complaint cast that pleading solely and entirely within the policy exclusions.” Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Cook, 7 N.Y.3d 131, 137 (2006). Thus, in another case covered on this blog, a court ordered a CGL insurer to defend a lawsuit alleging “a deliberate scheme” involving “trademark and trade dress infringement, fraud, racketeering, [and] unfair competition.” The Court held that the policy’s exclusion for “knowing acts” was not necessarily triggered because the insured could be liable for trademark infringement even without a finding of knowing wrongdoing.
- Partner
Bradley Nash represents policyholders in insurance disputes and other parties in complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts in New York and across the country. Brad focuses his practice on insurance recovery for ...
Search Blog
Recent Posts
- Ohio Supreme Court Rules Computer Software Cannot Be Subject To “Physical Loss” Or “Physical Damage” Under Insured’s Property Insurance Policy
- Criminal Acts Exclusion Bars Coverage Even Though Insured Not Charged With, or Convicted of, a Crime
- Insurer Not Permitted to Recoup Defense Costs Absent Express Reservation of the Right to Do So
- Liability Insurer May Not Deny Defense Coverage Based On Extrinsic Evidence “Bound Up With the Merits of the Underlying Case”
- Second Circuit Rules That Lower-Tier Excess Policies Were Exhausted by Below-Limits Settlement with Insured
- Does Contra Proferentem Apply to the “Sophisticated Insured”?
- Sexual Misconduct Exclusion Bars Coverage for Negligence Supervision Claim
- Delaware Supreme Court Rejects “Fundamentally Identical” Standard for Interpreting Related Claims Provision
- New York Court of Appeals Rules That Disgorgement Payment to SEC Did Not Constitute an Uninsured Penalty
- “Intentional Nonperformance” of Contractual Obligations Does Not Trigger Policy’s “Willful Acts”
Popular Categories
- Insurance Coverage
- Policy Exclusions
- Duty to Defend
- Cyber Coverage
- CGL Policies
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- D&O Policies
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Excess Insurance
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- COVID-19
- Occurrence/Accident
- Indemnification and Advancement
- Damages
- Rules of Interpretation
- Related Claims
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Covered Loss
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- E&O Policies
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- November 2021
- June 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018