Arenson v. National Auto. & Cas. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 August 1955 |
| Citation | 286 P.2d 816,45 Cal.2d 81 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | Irving ARENSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. (a Corporation), Defendant and Respondent. L. A. 23232. |
William Katz, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Parker, Stanbury, Reese & McGee, Los Angeles, and Charles Agor Harrison, South Pasadena, for respondent.
Plaintiff, holder of a personal liability insurance policy issued by defendant company, brought this action for a declaration of his rights and a determination of defendant's liability under the policy. The court concluded that defendant was not liable, and judgment was entered accordingly.
The policy was issued to plaintiff as the named insured, and stated that 'The unqualified word 'insured' includes (a) the named insured, (b) if residents of his household, his spouse, the relatives of either, and any other person under the age of twenty-one in the care of an insured * * *.' Defendant agreed to pay all sums up to $10,000 which the insured should become obligated to pay by reason of liability imposed upon him by law, including damages for injury to property, and to defend any suit brought against him in which such injury was alleged. One exclusion provision read, 'This policy does not apply: * * * (c) to injury, sickness, disease, death or destruction caused intentionally by or at the direction of the insured * * *.'
Plaintiff's minor son started a fire which injured school property, and the school district obtained a judgment against plaintiff for the amount of the damage. 1 The insurance company refused to defend the suit or to pay the amount of the judgment, claiming that the injury was caused intentionally by an insured and therefore came within the exclusion provision.
The company takes the position that the words 'the insured,' appearing in the provision which excludes liability for injuries 'caused intentionally by or at the direction of the insured,' refer to a class composed of all those covered by the policy, so that none of them may recover where an injury is caused intentionally by any member of the class. Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the exclusion provision does not preclude an insured who has not participated in an intentioned injury from being indemnified against liability for an injury intentionally committed by another insured and, furthermore, that there is nothing in the record her which discloses that the son's act was intentional. We have concluded that the policy protects the named insured against liability for intentional injury committed by another insured, and, accordingly, it will be unnecessary to consider whether the son's act was in fact intentional
The understanding of an ordinary person is the standard used in construing a contract of insurance, and any ambiguity in language must be resolved against the insurer. Ransom v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 43 Cal.2d 420, 424-425, 274 P.2d 633. It is also the rule that exceptions and exclusions are construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured. Mah See v. North American Acc. Ins. Co., 190 Cal. 421, 424-425, 213 P. 42, 26 A.L.R. 123; Pacific Heating & Ventilating Co. v. Williamsburg, 158 Cal. 367, 369-370, 111 P. 4.
It has been held that an exclusion provision similar to the one involved here is reasonably understood as designed to prevent indemnifying one against loss from his own wrongful acts and cannot be construed to exclude coverage for the wilful acts of another in the absence of a clear expression showing such intent. Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Aponaug Mfg. Co., 5 Cir., 197 F.2d 673, 674; Morgan v. Greater New York Taxpayers Mut. Ins. Ass'n, 305 N.Y. 243, 112 N.E.2d 273, 275. This construction is further supported...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lynette C.
... ... (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Partridge (1973) 10 Cal.3d 94, 101-102, 109 Cal.Rptr. 811, 514 P.2d 123.) However, ... (Arenson v. Nat. Automobile & Cas. Ins. Co. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 81, 83, 286 P.2d 816; Delgado v. Heritage ... ...
-
California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co.
... ... 855, 461 P.2d 39]; accord: Bertero v. National General Corp., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 64 [118 Cal.Rptr. 184, 529 P.2d ... (See Arenson v. Nat. Automobile & Cas. Ins. Co. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 81, 84, 286 P.2d 816.) ... California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau (1975) 15 Cal.3d 9, 18, 123 Cal.Rptr. 288, 538 ... ...
-
Smith v. Westland Life Ins. Co.
...377 P.2d 284; Prickett v. Royal Ins. Co. Ltd. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 234, 238, 14 Cal.Rptr. 675, 363 P.2d 907; Arenson v. Nat. Automobile & Cas. Ins. Co. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 81, 83, 286 P.2d 816; Ransom v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., supra, 43 Cal.2d at p. 425, 274 P.2d 633; see also Keeton, Insuranc......
-
John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist.
...coverage for liability based upon respondeat superior for the intentional torts of an employee. (Arenson v. Nat. Automobile & Cas. Ins. Co. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 81, 84, 286 P.2d 816; Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Turlock (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 988, 1000-1001, 216 Cal.Rptr. 796.) In the rare......
-
CHAPTER 8
...that wrongfully refuses to defend is liable on the judgment against the insured. (Arenson v. National Automobile & Cas. Ins. Co. (1955) 45 Cal. 2d 81, 84 [286 P.2d 816]; Civ. Code, § 2778.) Defendant argues, however, that the instant situation should be distinguished from that case because ......
-
CHAPTER 4
...exclusionary clauses are interpreted narrowly against the insurer. (See, e.g., Arenson v. Nat. Automobile & Cas. Ins. Co., (1955) 45 Cal. 2d 81, 83; Prickett v. Royal Ins. Co. Ltd., 56 Cal. 2d 234, 237 (1961).) These differing canons of construction, both derived from the fundamental princi......
-
Table of Cases
...Comp. LEXIS 18 (W/D-2019), §3:60 Arendell v. Auto Parts Club Inc., 29 CA4th 1261 (1994), §2:112 Arenson v. Nat. Automobile Cas. Ins. Co., 45 Cal.2d 81 (SC-1955), §12:134 Aresco v. WCAB, 79 CCC 1188 (W/D-2014), §6:52.1 Argueta v. La Brea Dining , 2018 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 522 (NPD-2018......
-
Penalties: increased and reduced compensation on account of fault
...preclude recovery by an insured which is vicariously liable for another’s willful wrong. [See Arenson v. Nat. Automobile Cas. Ins. Co. , 45 Cal.2d 81, 84 (SC-1955).] [§§12:135-12:139 Reserved] VI. ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT OF MINORS §12:140 Under 16 With False Documents LC §4557 provides for incre......