Western World Ins. Co., Inc. v. Hall, C4-84-382

Decision Date21 August 1984
Docket NumberNo. C4-84-382,C4-84-382
CourtMinnesota Court of Appeals
PartiesWESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. Darlene HALL, Respondent, and SHARONA CORPORATION and Andrew Care Home, Inc., its predecessor in interest, third party plaintiffs, Respondents, v. John A. LIETZKE, individually, and Brandow, Howard, Kollar and Rosenbloom, Inc., third party defendants, Respondents.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In the absence of specific language negating the question of capacity or intent, a self-inflicted injury exclusion in a third-party liability policy excludes coverage only for intentionally self-inflicted injuries.

2. The insured did not misrepresent its admission policies in its application for insurance.

3. The trial court erred in awarding attorneys' fees incurred in connection with settlement attempts and defense of the claim on the merits.

Robert E. Salmon, Meagher, Geer, Markham, Anderson, Adamson, Flaskamp & Brennan, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Paul W. Bergstrom, Meshbesher, Singer & Spence, Minneapolis, for respondent Hall.

James D. Miller, Broeker, Hartfeldt, Hedges & Grant, Minneapolis, for respondents Sharona Corp. et al.

David A. Bailly, Cragg & Bailly, Ltd. Minneapolis, for respondent Lietzke.

Heard, considered and decided by PARKER, P.J., and FOLEY, and HUSPENI, JJ.

OPINION

PARKER, Judge.

Western World Insurance Company appeals a declaratory judgment holding that the company has a duty to defend and indemnify Sharona Corporation and Andrew Care Home (insureds) from negligent care claims brought against them by Darlene Hall. Hall, a mental patient, sued the insureds for injuries suffered when she jumped or fell from a fifth floor window of the home. Western World contends that (1) it has no duty to defend and indemnify the insureds because the policy expressly excluded coverage for "self-inflicted injury"; (2) the insurance contract should be voided because of a material misrepresentation in the insured's application; and (3) the attorneys' fees awarded were excessive. We affirm as modified.

FACTS

In the fall of 1976 Jon Thompson, the administrator of the Andrew Care Home, contacted John Lietzke about obtaining general liability insurance for the home. Lietzke completed an insurance application which Thompson signed.

Thompson told Lietzke that Andrew Care Home's state license restricted it from admitting dangerous or harmful patients. The application described the facility as follows:

BOARD & CARE FACILITY

1. ELDERLY BOARD & CARE

2. MENTAL HEALTH BOARD & CARE

APPROX. 80% MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS WHO ARE IN TRANSITION FROM STATE INSTITUTION TO PRIVATE LIFE. NO OF DANGEROUS OR HARMFUL TYPE [sic]

In February 1977 Western World issued an owner's and professional liability policy. The policy excluded self-inflicted injury or death. The policy classified the home as a "convalescent home -- not psychopathic institution."

In July 1977 Darlene Hall, a mental patient, was injured when she jumped or fell from a fifth floor window of the home. She brought an action for negligent care against the insureds. Hall's answers to interrogatories state that she heard voices telling her to jump out the window, she removed the window screen, and fell or jumped after telling staff members about the voices.

Western World hired an attorney to defend against Hall's claims. Then it brought a separate declaratory judgment action, contending that the self-inflicted injury exclusion relieves it of the duty to defend and indemnify. On cross motions for summary judgment the trial court found that Western World has a duty to defend and indemnify against the claims and awarded attorneys' fees to the insureds.

ISSUES

1. Did the trial court err in determining that the self-inflicted injury exclusion in the policy does not relieve Western World of the duty to defend and indemnify the insureds?

2. Did the trial court err in finding no material misrepresentations in the insureds' insurance application which would justify voiding the policy?

3. Was the trial court's award of attorneys' fees excessive?

DISCUSSION
I

An insurance policy is a contract. The court's function is to determine what the agreement was and enforce it. If the terms of the policy are plain and unambiguous, their plain meaning should be given effect. Any ambiguity should be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer. See Fillmore v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co., 344 N.W.2d 875, 877 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). If any part of a cause of action is arguably within the scope of coverage, the insurer has a duty to defend. An insurer seeking to avoid affording a defense has the burden of demonstrating that all parts of the cause of action fall clearly outside the scope of coverage. Prahm v. Rupp Construction Co., 277 N.W.2d 389, 390 (Minn.1979).

Western World argues that the trial court failed to give effect to the "plain meaning" of the self-inflicted injury exclusion. The company contends that the exclusion applies to any self-caused injury and that Hall caused her injury, although perhaps not intentionally. Therefore, Western World concludes that it has no duty to defend and indemnify against Hall's claim.

We have found no cases interpreting a self-inflicted injury exclusion in the context of a third-party liability policy. But the phrase, "self-inflicted injury," has an accepted meaning in the context of first-party insurance policies. Exclusions for self-inflicted injuries in life, accident and disability policies have generally been interpreted to apply only when the insured wills or intends to cause the injury. 1B J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, Sec. 496, at 367 (1981); Williams v. Insurance Co. of North America, 423 F.2d 749 (4th Cir. 1970). Courts have long held that such exclusions do not apply where the insured lacks the capacity to form an intent to injure himself or herself. Crandal v. Accident Insurance Co., 27 F. 40 (N.D.Ill.1886) (suicide or self-inflicted injury exclusion not applicable where insured was insane when he committed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Mutual Service Cas. Ins. Co. v. Olson, C3-86-1401
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • March 24, 1987
    ...policy is a contract, and the court's role is to determine what the agreement was and to enforce it. Western World Insurance Co. v. Hall, 353 N.W.2d 221, 223 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). The phrase "resident of your household" is unambiguous and therefore effect must be given to its plain and common......
  • Pioneer Indus. Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • April 8, 2011
    ...information submitted with application for insurance under statutory standard set forth in § 60.85); W. World Ins. Co. v. Hall, 353 N.W.2d 221, 223–24 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (addressing whether misrepresentations made in application for insurance were material under § 60A.08(9)); Proprietors In......
  • Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, C. A. No. 97C-10-001 CHT (DE 3/16/2005)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • March 16, 2005
    ...65 F.3d 34 (5th Cir. 1995); White Mountain Constr. Co. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 631 A.2d 907, 910 (1993); Western World Ins. Co. v. Hall, 353 N.W.2d 221 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). 22. Opening Br. in Support of James Julian Inc.'s Mot. for Summ. J. Against Def. Liberty Mutual, D.I. 124, at 23. ......
  • Austin P. Keller Const. Co., Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • January 8, 1985
    ...insurance policy is a contract. The court's function is to determine what the agreement was and enforce it. Western World Ins. Co., Inc. v. Hall, 353 N.W.2d 221 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). If the terms of the policy are plain and unambiguous, their plain meaning should be given effect. Any ambiguit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 2 Types, Lines, and Categories of Applicable Insurance
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Insurance for Real Estate-Related Entities
    • Invalid date
    ...Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Crispo, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 484, 954 N.E.2d 27 (2011). Minnesota: Western World Insurance Co. v. Hall, 353 N.W.2d 221, 223 (Minn. App. 1984). Mississippi: Hankins v. Maryland Casualty Co./Zurich American Insurance Co., 101 So.3d 645 (Miss. 2012); Watson Qua......
  • CHAPTER 4 First-Party Insurance
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Insurance for Real Estate-Related Entities
    • Invalid date
    ...Maryland: TravCo Insurance Co. v. Williams, 430 Md. 396, 61 A.3d 50 (Md. App. 2013). Minnesota: Western World Insurance Co. v. Hall, 353 N.W.2d 221, 223 (Minn. App. 1984). New Jersey: Universal Underwriters Group v. Heibel, 901 A.2d 398, 404 (N.J. Super. 2006). New Mexico: Salas v. Mountain......
  • Chapter 2
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Business Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Crispo, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 484, 954 N.E.2d 27 (2011). Minnesota: Western World Insurance Co. v. Hall, 353 N.W.2d 221, 223 (Minn. App. 1984). Mississippi: Hankins v. Maryland Casualty Co./Zurich American Insurance Co., 2012 WL 4711437 (Miss. Oct. 4, 2012); ......
  • Chapter 4
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Business Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...Maryland: TravCo Insurance Co. v. Williams, 430 Md. 396, 61 A.3d 50 (Md. App. 2013). Minnesota: Western World Insurance Co. v. Hall, 353 N.W.2d 221, 223 (Minn. App. 1984). New Jersey: Universal Underwriters Group v. Heibel, 901 A.2d 398, 404 (N.J. Super. 2006). New Mexico: Salas v. Mountain......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT