Maxson v. Farmers Ins. of Idaho, Inc.

Decision Date30 January 1985
Docket NumberNo. 14888,14888
Citation695 P.2d 428,107 Idaho 1043
PartiesLarry MAXSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE OF IDAHO, INC., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Respondent, and Rocky Sligar, an individual, Third Party Defendant.
CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

Jeffrey E. Rolig, Hepworth, Nungester & Felton, Twin Falls, for plaintiff-appellant.

G. Kent Taylor, Taylor, Beito, Sinclair & Covington, Twin Falls, for defendant-third party plaintiff-respondent.

BURNETT, Judge.

This case began with a punch in the face. We are asked to decide whether the resulting personal injury was covered by an insurance policy. The district court held that the injury was the product of an intentional tort and, therefore, was excluded from coverage. The court further held that the insurance company was not required to defend its insured against the claim. We affirm.

The punch was delivered in a barroom by one Rocky Sligar. The recipient, Larry Maxson, suffered a broken jaw. In a deposition Sligar testified that Maxson had "flagged [him] a bird" on the street sometime before the encounter in the barroom. Sligar further testified that when he later saw Maxson sitting in the bar, he walked over and Maxson offered him a seat. Sligar declined. An argument developed and Sligar invited Maxson outside to resolve their differences. According to Sligar, Maxson responded that if they went outside, he would get a gun from a pickup truck and shoot Sligar. While Maxson was still seated in his chair, Sligar struck him. Sligar later contended that he had acted in self-defense.

Maxson sued. Sligar notified Farmers Insurance Company of Maxson's claim. Farmers had issued a general liability policy to Sligar's father, and Sligar was one of the insureds. The policy obligated the company to "pay all damages which the insured becomes legally obligated to pay because of bodily injury to any person ... caused by an occurrence to which [the] insurance applies." The policy also provided that the company would "defend, at its own expense, any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of such bodily injury...." However, the scope of coverage was narrowed by an exclusion for "bodily injury or property damage caused willfully, intentionally or maliciously by or at the direction of the insured...." The insurance company filed a declaratory judgment action against Sligar's father, the principal insured, and obtained a declaration that Maxson's claim was not covered by the policy. 1 Thereafter, the company refused to defend Maxson's claim.

Maxson and Sligar eventually settled. Sligar consented to judgment against him for $25,000 and assigned to Maxson any cause of action he might have against the insurance company. In return, Maxson gave Sligar a covenant not to execute. Armed with the judgment and the assignment, Maxson then filed this suit against the company. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the company on both the question of coverage and the question of duty to defend. We will address these questions in turn.

I

In Farmers Insurance Group v. Sessions, 100 Idaho 914, 918, 607 P.2d 422, 426 (1980), our Supreme Court held that the intentional tort exclusion in a liability insurance policy is invoked if the "insured acted (whether willfully, intentionally or maliciously) for the purpose of causing injury...." Here, the district court held that Sligar's conduct was "willful and intentional," but the court did not make a specific determination that Sligar had acted "for the purpose of causing injury." Upon this omission Maxson now argues that the summary judgment was defective and that it must be set aside because a genuine issue exists as to Sligar's purpose in striking him. We disagree.

An appellate court independently may determine whether a genuine issue exists as to a material fact. See Bob Daniels and Sons v. Weaver, 106 Idaho 535, 681 P.2d 1010 (Ct.App.1984). Where the evidentiary facts are undisputed, and where only one reasonable inference can be drawn from those facts, the court may draw the inference even though it is adverse to the party against whom summary judgment is entered. 2 Christensen v. Idaho Land Developers, Inc., 104 Idaho 458, 660 P.2d 70 (Ct.App.1983). Here, it is undisputed that Sligar intentionally punched Maxson in the face. Sligar acknowledged in his deposition that striking a person with his fist would inflict injury. In our view, the only reasonable inference is that Sligar's purpose in throwing the punch was to cause injury. Maxson, who now stands in Sligar's shoes vis-a-vis the insurance company, argues that Sligar intended not so much to cause injury as to defend himself against a perceived threat and that Sligar simply misjudged the situation. Such misjudgment, Maxson contends, is an act of negligence falling outside the insurance policy's exclusion of intentional torts. We find this argument unpersuasive. It is uncontroverted that Sligar initiated the barroom confrontation. When Sligar threw the punch, Maxson was unarmed and seated in a chair. He had threatened no harm to Sligar in the bar; his only threat, according to Sligar, was to get a gun and use it if they went outside as Sligar had suggested.

This is not a case where a party, while physically defending himself, has exceeded the reasonable bounds of self-defense. Compare, e.g., Mullen v. Glens Falls Insurance Co., 73 Cal.App.3d 163, 140 Cal.Rptr. 605 (1977) (dictum). Rather, it is a case where no occasion existed for self-defense. If, but only if, one actually and reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger, he may use such force as appears reasonably necessary to protect himself against the danger. Brasseaux v. Girouard, 269 So.2d 590, 599-600 (La.App.1972) (on rehearing); cf. State v. Baker, 103 Idaho 43, 644 P.2d 365 (Ct.App.1982) (discussing similar standard in criminal case). Here, under no reasonable view of the facts can we say that Maxson posed an imminent danger to Sligar in the barroom. Under such circumstances the use of force must be regarded not as a negligent miscalculation of appropriate conduct but as the intentional infliction of harm. Brasseaux v. Girouard, supra. We conclude that Sligar's act was intentional within the meaning of the insurance policy exclusion.

II

We next...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. Walukiewicz
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 17 Marzo 2009
    ...Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Machett, 207 Ga.App. 588, 589, 428 S.E.2d 636 (1993); Maxson v. Farmers Ins. of Idaho, Inc., 107 Idaho 1043, 1044-45, 695 P.2d 428 (Ct.App.1985); Home Ins. Co. v. Neilsen, 165 Ind.App. 445, 451, 332 N.E.2d 240 (1975); AMCO Ins. Co. v. Estate of Wehde, ......
  • Group Ins. Co. of Michigan v. Czopek
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 9 Septiembre 1992
    ...649 (Fla.App.1977), where the insured walked over to the victim, swung at him, and struck him in the face; Maxson v. Farmers Ins. of Idaho, Inc., 107 Idaho 1043, 695 P.2d 428 (1985), where the insured punched the victim in the face; Mid America Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith, 109 Ill.App.3......
  • Farmers and Mechanics Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cook
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 10 Diciembre 2001
    ...210 Neb. 184, 313 N.W.2d 636 (1981); Transamerica Ins. Group v. Meere, 143 Ariz. 351, 694 P.2d 181 (1984); Maxson v. Farmers Ins. of Idaho, Inc., 107 Idaho 1043, 695 P.2d 428 (1985); Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 23 Ohio St.3d 78, 491 N.E.2d 688 (1986); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. ......
  • State of Idaho v. Bunker Hill Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Idaho
    • 2 Septiembre 1986
    ...accord, Standlee v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 107 Idaho 899, 693 P.2d 1101 (Ct.App.1984); Maxson v. Farmers Insurance of Idaho, Inc., 107 Idaho 1043, 695 P.2d 428 (Ct.App.1985). The duty to defend arises upon the filing of a complaint whose allegations, in whole or in part, read......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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