Eberdt v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. A76-11,A76-11 |
| Citation | 585 P.2d 711,36 Or.App. 679 |
| Parties | Edward EBERDT, Appellant, v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota Corporation, Respondent. 16621; CA 10157. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Brian E. Jeanotte, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
Gerald R. Hayes, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before SCHWAB, C. J., and LEE, RICHARDSON and JOSEPH, JJ.
Plaintiff, a doctor, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, his professional liability insurance carrier. Plaintiff contends that the insurer was obligated by the terms of an insurance policy to defend against an action for alienation of affections and that, therefore, the insurer is liable for the cost of settling the action filed against plaintiff by a third party.
From 1971 to 1974, plaintiff had a professional liability insurance policy with defendant. In March, 1975, plaintiff was served with summons and complaint in a suit entitled "DANIEL THOMAS HANNAN V. EDWARD C. EBERDT, M. D." 1 The complaint alleged that from January, 1973, until December, 1973, Eberdt
" * * * Intentionally and negligently engaged in a course of activity and conduct with Barbara L. Hannan which was designed to obtain the affections of Barbara L. Hannan, and which did Alienate from (Daniel Hannan), The affections of Barbara L. Hannan, causing her to abandon (Daniel Hannan), and causing the marriage of Barbara L. Hannan and (Daniel Hannan) to terminate in divorce." (Emphasis supplied.)
Plaintiff, through his attorney, tendered the complaint to defendant on or about March 22, 1975. Defendant denied any obligation to defend against the complaint on the ground, Inter alia, that the acts complained of did not constitute "professional services," and it was contrary to public policy to insure against the activity alleged. A subsequent amended complaint was not tendered to the defendant.
In April, 1976, plaintiff voluntarily made a settlement with Daniel Hannan of the alienation action. The action was then dismissed with prejudice. At all times plaintiff disclaimed guilt of any personal or professional wrong.
In general, the allegations of the complaint determine an insurance company's duty to defend. Farris v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty,273 Or. 628, 635, 542 P.2d 1031 (1975). Thus, the insurer is obligated to defend if there is, potentially, a case under the complaint within the coverage of the policy. Blohm et al v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 231 Or. 410, 415-16, 373 P.2d 412 (1962). However, it is against public policy for a tortfeasor to insure against liability for intentionally inflicted injury or damage. Snyder v. Nelson/Leatherby Ins., 278 Or. 409, 414, 564 P.2d 681 (1977); Isenhart v. General Casualty Co., 233 Or. 49, 377 P.2d 26 (1962).
Under the public policy limitation against insuring for intentionally inflicted injury or damage, it is not sufficient that the insured's intentional, albeit unlawful, acts have resulted in unintended harm; the acts must have been committed for the purpose of inflicting the injury and harm before either a policy provision excluding intentional harm applies or the public policy against insurability attaches. Nielsen v. St. Paul Companies, 283 Or. 277, 281, 583 P.2d 545 (1978). Therefore, the issue in the instant case is whether a complaint alleging alienation of affection could potentially fall within the coverage of the insurance policy. It could not.
The elements of alienation of affection are wrongful conduct of the defendant, Intended to cause and which actually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., Civ. No. 85-3025.
...Plaintiff doubtlessly contends that the tort suit is groundless, false or fraudulent. Defendant cites Eberdt v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 36 Or.App. 679, 585 P.2d 711 (1978), in support of its position. In that case the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that alienation of affections cons......
-
Rivera v. Nevada Medical Liability Ins. Co.
...injury from medical treatment, not injury from acts which satisfied the doctor's own prurient interest); Eberdt v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 36 Or.App. 679, 585 P.2d 711 (1978) (carrier need not defend doctor because an intentional tort cannot be committed in a negligent manner).2 Th......
-
State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Barrett
...Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rowland, 312 S.C. 536, 540, 435 S.E.2d 879, 882 (Ct.App.1993) (quoting Eberdt v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 36 Or.App. 679, 585 P.2d 711, 713 (1978)). Although South Carolina allows alternative pleading, a party may not invoke coverage by couching inten......
-
USAA Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rowland
...of affection[s] constitutes a claim that someone has intentionally inflicted an injury or damage." Eberdt v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 36 Or.App. 679, 585 P.2d 711, 713 (1978). Although USAA's policy defines the term "occurrence," it does not define the word "accident." In the abse......