Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Cook
| Decision Date | 08 June 2006 |
| Citation | 850 N.E.2d 1152,7 N.Y.3d 131 |
| Parties | AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, Respondent, v. Alfred S. COOK, Appellant, and Victoria Pruyn, as Administratrix of the Estate of Richard A. Barber, Deceased, and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Andrew H. Pruyn, an Infant, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Roche, Corrigan, McCoy & Bush, Albany (Robert P. Roche of counsel), for appellant.
Michael J. Hutter, Albany, and Majewski & Associates, Melville, for Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, respondent.
Tabner, Ryan and Keniry, LLP, Albany (Benjamin F. Neidl and William F. Ryan, Jr., of counsel), for Victoria Pruyn, respondent.
The issue in this declaratory judgment action is whether the insurer has a duty to defend its policyholder under his homeowner's insurance policy in an underlying wrongful death action, resulting from a shooting committed in self-defense. We conclude that the insurer here is obligated to defend under the policy.
On February 20, 2002, Alfred Cook shot and killed Richard Barber inside his home. At the depositions, the witnesses testified that the two men had known each other for many years, but became involved in a dispute relating to their business relationship. Barber, weighing about 360 pounds, was approximately three times Cook's size and had previously attacked the smaller man, causing injury to his leg. On the morning of February 20, Barber and another man were outside of Cook's home, hurling objects at the house. They left without further incident, but Barber returned later that day with two other companions. When Cook, who was standing outside his door, saw them approaching, he asked a person visiting him to leave because he expected trouble. He returned inside, locked the door and, anticipating a confrontation, retrieved a .25 caliber hand-gun from his bedroom.
There was further testimony that the group burst into Cook's home. The four individuals gathered in the kitchen where Barber began demanding money from Cook while pounding his fists on the kitchen table. Cook, alarmed, drew his gun and demanded that they leave his house. Barber apparently laughed at the small size of the pistol, at which point Cook withdrew to his bedroom for a larger weapon. He picked up a loaded, 12 gauge shotgun and stood in his living room at the far end of his pool table. Cook again ordered them to leave the house. Although Barber started to head toward the door with his companions, he stopped at the opposite end of the pool table, turned to face Cook and told his companions to take anything of value, and that he would meet them outside because he had some business to attend to. When Barber menacingly started advancing toward Cook, Cook warned him that he would shoot if he came any closer. Cook aimed his gun toward the lowest part of Barber's body that was not obscured by the pool table — his navel. When Barber was about one step away from the barrel of the gun, Cook fired a shot into Barber's abdomen. Barber died later that day at a hospital.
Cook was indicted for intentional and depraved indifference murder. At trial he raised a justification defense. A jury acquitted him of both murder counts and of the lesser included offenses of manslaughter in the first and second degrees.
The administrator of Barber's estate, Victoria Pruyn, commenced a wrongful death action against Cook. The first cause of action alleges that "[i]njury to the decedent and the decedent's death were caused by the negligence of the defendant, Alfred S. Cook." Specifically, the complaint alleges that Cook's behavior "consisted of negligently playing with a loaded shotgun; negligently pointing that shotgun at the abdomen of the decedent; negligently discharging that shot gun into the decedent's abdomen; and engaging in unruly behavior at the Defendant's residence on February 20, 2002." In a separate cause of action, the complaint alleges that Cook intentionally shot Barber causing Barber's death. At his examination before trial, Cook testified, "I knew the [shot from the] shotgun would injure Mr. Barber because I had to stop him, but I did not anticipate it killing him."
Cook sought homeowner's personal liability coverage from his insurer, the Travelers Insurance Company, appearing in this action as the Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford. Hartford disclaimed coverage explaining that the incident was not an "occurrence" within the meaning of the policy and furthermore that the injury inflicted upon Barber fell within a policy exclusion, as it was "expected or intended" by Cook. The insurer commenced this declaratory judgment action against both Cook and Pruyn for a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Cook in the wrongful death action. After depositions, Hartford moved for summary judgment and Cook cross-moved, seeking a declaration that the insurer was required to defend and indemnify him in the underlying tort action.
Supreme Court denied Hartford's motion and granted Cook's cross motion to the extent of declaring that the insurer had a duty to provide a defense for Cook in the wrongful death action. The court found that Hartford failed to prove that the incident was not an occurrence covered by the policy or that Cook's actions were subject to the exclusion for injuries expected or intended by the insured. The court held that the insurer had a duty to defend because the negligence allegations in the complaint could potentially be proven at trial.
The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that since Cook intentionally shot Barber, his actions could not be considered an accident or "occurrence" and, thus, were not covered by the policy (21 A.D.3d 1155, 1157, 801 N.Y.S.2d 837 [2005]). The Court also noted that the acts came within the policy exclusion for bodily injury "expected or intended" by the insured (id. at 1158, 801 N.Y.S.2d 837). One Justice dissented and voted to affirm, holding that if the negligence claim were established, Cook's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jewish Cmty. Ctr. of Staten Island v. Trumbull Ins. Co.
...It is well established that an insurer's duty to defend is broader than its duty to indemnify. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Cook, 7 N.Y.3d 131, 137, 850 N.E.2d 1152, 818 N.Y.S.2d 176 (2006). As the duty to defend is “exceedingly broad,” an insurer must defend whenever the allegations ......
-
Silverman Neu, LLP v. Admiral Ins. Co.
...Law Under New York law, an insurer has an “ ‘exceedingly broad’ ” duty to defend the insured. Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Cook, 7 N.Y.3d 131, 137, 818 N.Y.S.2d 176, 850 N.E.2d 1152 (2006) (quoting Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Rapid–Am. Corp., 80 N.Y.2d 640, 648, 593 N.Y.S.2d 966, 609 N.E.2d 506 (19......
-
U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Image By J&K, LLC
...Euchner–USA, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. , 754 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Cook , 7 N.Y.3d 131, 137, 818 N.Y.S.2d 176, 850 N.E.2d 1152 (2006) )."An insurer's duty to defend ... is ordinarily ascertained by comparing the allegations of a complaint w......
-
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. United Indus. & Constr. Corp.
...be required to indemnify United for damages falling outside of the scope of this exclusion. See Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Cook, 7 N.Y.3d 131, 137–38, 818 N.Y.S.2d 176, 850 N.E.2d 1152 (2006)(insurer could not avail itself of exclusion for intentional acts where complaint alleged both ne......
-
CHAPTER 11 Surety Bonds
...BP Air Conditioning Corp. v. One Beacon Insurance Group, 33 A.D.3d 116, 821 N.Y.S.2d 1, 4–5 (2006); Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cook, 7 N.Y.3d 131, 850 N.E.2d 1152, 1155 (2006); City of New York v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 15 A.D.3d 228, 790 N.Y.S.2d 82, 83–84 (2005). North ......
-
Chapter 2
...it actually constitutes ‘litigation insurance’ in addition to liability coverage.”); Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford v. Cook, 850 N.E.2d 1152, 1155 (N.Y. 2006) (“For this reason, when a policy represents that it will provide the insured with a defense, we have said that it actually......
-
CHAPTER 5 Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability (CGL) Insurance: Coverage A for "Bodily Injury" or "Property Damage" Liabilities
...Corp. v. One Beacon Insurance Group, 8 N.Y.3d 708, 840 N.Y.S.2d 302, 871 N.E.2d 1128 (N.Y. 2007); Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cook, 7 N.Y.3d 131, 818 N.Y.S.2d 176, 850 N.E.2d 1152, 1155 (N.Y. 2006) (“For this reason, when a policy represents that it will provide the insured with a defense, ......
-
Chapter 5
...Corp. v. One Beacon Insurance Group, 8 N.Y.3d 708, 840 N.Y.S.2d 302, 871 N.E.2d 1128 (N.Y. 2007); Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cook, 7 N.Y.3d 131, 818 N.Y.S.2d 176, 850 N.E.2d 1152, 1155 (N.Y. 2006) (“For this reason, when a policy represents that it will provide the insured with a defense, ......