You are here: / / THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR BODILY INJURY INTENDED OR EXPECTED...
,

THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR BODILY INJURY INTENDED OR EXPECTED BY THE INSURED; HERE THE INSURED UNINTENTIONALLY STRUCK COLE, WHO WAS ATTEMPTING TO BREAK UP A FIGHT BETWEEN THE INSURED AND A THIRD PERSON; BECAUSE THE INJURY TO COLE WAS UNINTENDED, THE INSURER WAS REQUIRED TO DEFEND THE INSURED IN COLE’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined plaintiff insurer was required, under the terms of the policy, to defend the insured, LePore, in the personal injury action by Cole against LePore. LePore was fighting with another and Cole was injured attempting to break it up. The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury intended or expected by the insured. The complaint alleged LePore negligently and carelessly struck Cole when LePore was trying to strike another person:

Plaintiff contends that no coverage exists under the insurance policy because LePore intended to cause physical harm to another person. An insured, however, may be indemnified for an intentional act that causes an unintended injury … . To determine whether a result was accidental, “it is customary to look at the causalty from the point of view of the insured, to see whether or not, from [the insured’s] point of view, it was unexpected, unusual and unforeseen” … . In describing the incident at issue, LePore stated that she did not intend to hit Cole. The record also contains evidence that Cole was inadvertently hit. In view of this, a sufficient basis exists to conclude that Cole’s injuries were not expected or intended within the embrace of the policy exclusion … . To that end, LePore can be indemnified under the policy, not because she acted negligently, but because her intentional act caused unintended harm. …

Plaintiff may be correct that LePore committed an intentional tort based upon [the transferred-intent] doctrine. … Plaintiff, however, erroneously conflates tort principles with contract principles — the latter of which governs the interpretation of insurance policies … . Vermont Mut. Ins. Group v LePore, 2022 NY Slip Op 06978, Third Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: Here the insurance policy excluded coverage for bodily injury intended or expected by the insured, LePore. Cole was injured when LePore unintentionally struck her as Cole tried to break up a fight between LePore and another. Because LePore injured Cole unintentionally, the insurer was obligated to defend LePore in the personal injury action brought by Cole.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT IN A GARAGE WHERE METHAMPHETAMINE WAS BEING MANUFACTURED, THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SHE CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE DRUGS, POSSESSION CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
COCAINE-POSSESSION OFFENSES CHARGED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WERE NOT LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES OF THE THE COCAINE-POSSESSION OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMLAINTS; SCI IS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE.
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT VALID; THE COURT’S TERSE INQUIRY ABOUT THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS NOT CURED BY DEFENDANT’S EXECUTION OF A MORE DETAILED WRITTEN WAIVER AFTER SHE WAS SENTENCED AND MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT).
TRANSFERS MADE DURING 60-MONTH LOOK-BACK PERIOD WERE NOT MADE IN ANTICIPATION OF THE FUTURE NEED FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, DETERMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANNULLED.
Truck Driver Was Employee
FATHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, FATHER DEMONSTRATED HE WAS ILL AND, BECAUSE CUSTODY WAS AWARDED TO A NON-PARENT IN HIS ABSENCE BASED UPON UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS, HE HAD A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE.
Department of Motor Vehicles Did Not Exceed Its Powers In Promulgating Regulations Re: Lifetime Revocation of Driver’s Licenses, Five-Year Stay of Relicensure, and Subsequent Five-Year Restricted License/Ignition Interlock Period for Alcohol-Related Convictions
HEAVY BARN DOORS WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN OFF THE HINGES FELL ON PLAINTIFF AS HE DELIVERED SHEETROCK TO THE BARN WHICH WAS BEING CONVERTED TO A MUSIC STUDIO; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DOORS PRESENTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND CONSTITUTED AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD AND WHETHER THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION DID NOT APPLY (LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1)) (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BEFORE SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER, THE COURT DID... THE RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT THE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE HEARING OFFICER TO DETERMINE...