Allstate Ins. Co. v. Green
| Decision Date | 22 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1631,86-1631 |
| Citation | 831 F.2d 145 |
| Parties | ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linda GREEN, Individually and as Next Friend of Shari Green, and Frank Green, Defendants-Appellants, Donald R. Robertson, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert Van Cleef, Becker & Van Cleef, P.C., Frank G. Becker (argued), Southfield, Mich., for defendants-appellants.
James L. Borin, Garan, Lucow, Miller, Seward, Cooper & Becker, P.C., Rosalind Rochkind (argued), Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WELLFORD, MILBURN and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Allstate Insurance Company, which had issued a homeowners policy to a man named Robertson, brought a diversity action seeking a judgment declaring that neither Mr. Robertson nor his fourteen-year-old son had coverage for claims asserted against them in a state court action arising out of the alleged rape of an eleven-year-old girl in the Robertson home. The federal district court entered summary judgment in favor of Allstate, holding that there was no coverage because of a policy exclusion for losses that "may reasonably be expected to result from the intentional or criminal acts of an insured person...." That judgment was appealed to this court by the plaintiffs in the state court action, who are defendants here. They have now moved for dismissal of the declaratory judgment action on the ground that it was an abuse of discretion for the federal district court to have entertained such a suit in the first place.
Finding no abuse of discretion, we shall deny the motion to dismiss. We shall reverse the judgment on the merits, however, because the rather skimpy record fails to establish that a judgment against the Robertsons in the underlying tort action would necessarily be predicated on the intentional or criminal acts of an insured person.
.............................................................
...................
* * *
The girl and her parents initially claimed that the girl had been raped by a group of boys that included young Robertson. The Robertson boy denied having been a participant in any rape, however, and in arguing against Allstate's summary judgment motion the tort claimants advanced the theory that the boy had simply been negligent in allowing a group of his friends to use the Robertson home for immoral purposes. This theory finds support in a written statement that Allstate obtained from the boy's father.
The statement, which must be accepted as true for purposes of the summary judgment proceeding, suggests that these are the facts. The Robertson boy had a day off from school on April 20, 1983, and three male friends came to visit him at home that morning. There was no adult in the house. The young girl, who was a friend of one of the male visitors, knocked at the door around lunchtime, and young Robertson let her in. All of the boys were under the impression that the girl had been sexually active in the past. While the Robertson boy and one of his friends remained in the den of the house, the other boys took the girl into a bedroom and had sexual intercourse with her.
It was represented to the district court that discovery had been taken by both sides in the state court action. No depositions or similar discovery materials were filed with the federal court, but at oral argument on the summary judgment motion the lawyer for the girl and her parents contended that the sexual incident had been allowed to occur because of the negligence of the Robertson boy and his father. As a result of that negligence, counsel represented, the girl had contracted a venereal disease, had experienced aggravation of a lupus condition, and had suffered physical trauma attendant upon the penetration. Counsel conceded that there would be no insurance coverage for an intentional participation in the rape by the Robertson boy, but he maintained that the insurance company had a duty to indemnify the Robertsons against any award of damages based on negligence.
We agree.
Under the policy, Allstate undertook to "pay all sums arising from the same loss which an insured person becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury...." (emphasis in original). The complete policy was not made part of the record, but Allstate's complaint asserts that the senior Robertson was a named insured, and there has been no suggestion that the younger Robertson was not an additional insured person under the terms of the policy. The exclusionary clause on which Allstate relies provides, in pertinent part, that:
"We do not cover any bodily injury ... which may reasonably be expected to result from the intentional or criminal acts of an insured person or which is in fact intended by an insured person." (emphasis in original).
Under this language it is clear that if young Robertson had raped the girl himself, his act would have been an intentional or criminal act of an insured person and there would have been no coverage for either of the Robertsons. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Freeman, 160 Mich.App. 349, 408 N.W.2d 153 (1987), where identical policy language was held to exclude coverage in respect of an intentional shooting with a gun to which, it was alleged, one insured person had negligently allowed another insured person to have access. But that is not this case. Here, by hypothesis, neither of the alleged rapists was an insured person, and it is entirely possible that any liability to which either of the Robertsons might be subjected would be solely the result of his negligence. 1
The district court seems to have thought that coverage was excluded because young Robertson intentionally let the girl into the house, knowing of her supposed reputation, and thereby committed an intentional act from which the injuries allegedly inflicted by the other boys might reasonably have been expected to result. Under this analysis, a homeowner who knowingly created any hazardous physical condition in his house would be denied coverage in respect of his negligence. We must reject the conclusion that the Michigan courts would give the language of Allstate's policy such a construction, bearing in mind that under Michigan law " 'exceptions in an insurance policy to the general liability provided for are to be strictly construed against the insurer.' " Pietrantonio v. Travelers Insurance Co., 282 Mich. 111, 116, 275 N.W. 786 (1937), as quoted and followed in Powers v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, 427 Mich. 602, 398 N.W.2d 411, 420 (1986).
Allstate quotes extensively from Illinois Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Dragovich, 139 Mich.App. 502, 362 N.W.2d 767 (1984), where the court said that
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Freeman
...we also find equally instructive cases which have distinguished "the insured" from "an insured" and "any insured." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Green, 831 F.2d 145, 147 (C.A. 6, 1987); Safeco Ins. Co. of America, Inc. v. McKenna, 90 N.M. 516, 565 P.2d 1033 (1977); Pawtucket Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lebre......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Burrough
...Allstate's criminal acts exclusion has also concluded that the criminal acts exclusion applies to minors. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Green, 831 F.2d 145, 147 (6th Cir.1987) ("Under this language it is clear that if young Robertson[, a fourteen-year-old boy,] had raped the girl himself, his ac......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Burrough
...which they cannot be prosecuted. Other courts have applied the provision to criminal acts by minors as well. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Green, 831 F.2d 145, 147 (6th Cir.1987) ("Under this language it is clear that if young 14 year old Robertson had raped the girl himself, his act would have ......
-
Vanguard Ins. Co. v. McKinney, Docket No. 116512
...we also find equally instructive cases which have distinguished "the insured" from "an insured" and "any insured." Allstate Ins Co v Green, 831 F2d 145, 147 (CA 6, 1987); Safeco Ins Co of America, Inc v McKenna, 90 NM 516; 565 P2d 1033 (1977); Pawtucket Mutual Ins Co v Lebrecht, 104 NH 465;......
-
Does crime pay? Insurance for criminal acts.
...Allstate Ins. Co. v. Juniel, 931 P.2d 511 (Colo. App. 1996). (70.) Allstate v. Burrough, 120 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 1997); Allstate v. Green, 831 F.2d 145, 147 (6th Cir. 1987) (rape by 14-year-old boy) (Michigan law); Allstate v. Cutcher, 920 F.2d 796, 798 (N.D. Ohio 1996); Allstate v. Dillard,......