George v. Stone

• Decision Date: 07 April 1972
• Docket Number: No. 71--182,71--182
• Citation: 260 So.2d 259
• Parties: Robert A. GEORGE, Appellant, v. Margaret Johnson STONE, Executrix of the Estate of William Johnson, Deceased, and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 259

260 So.2d 259

Robert A. GEORGE, Appellant, v. Margaret Johnson STONE, Executrix of the Estate of William Johnson, Deceased, and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 71--182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 7, 1972.

Sam Daniels and Guilmartin, Gaine & Gaine, Miami, for appellant.

H. Eugene Fischer, of Fischer, Hinckley & Shores, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Allstate Insurance.

CROSS, Judge.

Appellant-plaintiff, Robert A. George, appeals a summary final judgment entered in favor of appellee-defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by Allstate's deceased insured, William Johnson. We reverse.

Plaintiff is a doctor who, in 1968, was treating William Johnson's mother-in-law, a Mrs. Mee. On June 10, 1968, plaintiff visited Mrs. Mee at the nursing home where she was confined. William Johnson was present during the doctor's visit, and suddenly and without warning pulled a gun, shot and killed Mrs. Mee, shot plaintiff twice, severely wounding the doctor, and finally Johnson committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.

Defendant-Allstate Insurance Company had issued an insurance policy to Johnson which provided, among other things, that Allstate would pay all damages which the insured should become legally obligated to pay because of bodily injury sustained by any person. The policy further provided that this coverage did not apply to any injury 'caused feloniously or intentionally by or at the direction of an Insured. . . .'

The complaint filed by the plaintiff alleged that on the date of the shooting, Mr. Johnson had become so mentally disturbed that without any warning, notice or provocation, Mr. Johnson suddenly had a firearm in his hand with which he proceeded to kill Mrs. Mee, shoot plaintiff twice, and finally kill himself.

Allstate filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Johnson had intentionally and feloniously injured plaintiff, and that the policy coverage therefore did not apply under the exclusionary provision set forth above. Plaintiff's opposition to the motion rested upon the contention that Johnson was insane at the time of the shooting, and thus incapable of forming the requisite intent. The trial court granted Allstate's motion, and summary final judgment was entered in favor of Defendant-Allstate Insurance Company. This appeal then followed.

We have for determination (1) whether the exception clause is inoperative, and the insurer liable, where the injury was caused by an insane act on the part of the perpetrator; and (2) if so, whether there is in the instant case a genuine issue of material fact as to the sanity vel non of the insured, barring the entry of summary judgment.

Clauses excluding coverage for losses caused by intentional wrongful acts, often called 'intentional injury exclusion clauses,' are common in various types of insurance contracts, and are generally accepted as valid limitations on liability. Annot., 2 A.L.R.3d 1238. See also Butler v. Peninsular Life Insurance Company, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 608. However, the issue of the effect of the purported insanity of the tortfeasor on such an exclusion clause has not been determined in Florida. Notwithstanding, two different lines of thought have developed on this issue in other jurisdictions.

One line of cases holds that if the particular injury is the result of an insane act, the intentional injury exclusion clause is inoperative and the insurer is liable. This line of cases is exemplified by Ruvolo v. American Casualty Company, 1963, 39 N.J. 490, 189 A.2d 204, and the cases there cited. In Ruvolo, the New Jersey court stated:

'In applying the exclusory provision, however, whether in a life, accident, liability or fire policy, it has come to be commonly accepted that where the death or loss involved, be it of the insured or caused by the insured, is the product of an insane act, recovery is not barred. (citations omitted.)

'. . ..

'We hold that if the insured was suffering from a derangement of his intellect which deprived him of the capacity to govern his conduct in accordance with reason, and while in that condition acting on an irrational impulse he shot and killed (the victim), his act cannot be treated as 'intentional' within the connotation of the defendant's insurance contract.'

See also Rosa v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, D.Conn.1965, 243 F.Supp. 407.

The other line of authority holds that an injury inflicted by an insane person is 'intentionally inflicted' where the actor understands the physical nature and consequences of the act, and had a purpose and intention to cause the injury, although he was mentally incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. In other words, a person may intentionally do a thing although he does not know right from wrong. In Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Wagner, Ky.App.1964, 380 S.W.2d 224, it was stated:

'. . . a person may be excused from penalty if he is insane at the time he commits a criminal act. He may do the act with every intention of consummating it, but if it is shown that he was mentally insufficient, he is excused from the imposition of the usual sanctions. The absence of punishment, however, does not retrospectively expunge the original intention.'

See also Deloache v. Carolina Life Insurance Company, 1958, 233 S.Ct. 341, 104 S.E.2d 875.

In the instant case, we determine that where the tortfeasor's mental state is such that he may be deemed insane, in the accepted legal sense of the word, the better rule is that an injury caused by an insured while in that condition cannot be considered to have been caused feloniously and intentionally within the connotation of the words as used in an intentional injury exclusion clause. If Mr. Johnson, the insured in the instant case, was suffering from a derangement of his intellect which deprived him of the capacity to govern his conduct in accordance with reason, and while in that condition acting on an irrational impulse he shot and injured plaintiff, his act was not intentional within the meaning of the exclusionary clause. Ruvolo v. American Casualty Company, supra; 1A J. Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice, §§ 481--2 (1965); 10 Couch on Insurance 2d § 41:667 (1962).

The principle set forth above comports with the guiding principle of insurance law that exclusionary provisions are to be strictly construed against the insurer, and in favor of providing coverage in order that the purpose of insurance not be defeated. E.g., Michigan Mutual Liability Company v. Mattox, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 754. Therefore, if the insured is shown to have been insane at the time he shot and injured plaintiff, then the exclusion clause is inoperative.

We turn next to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact as to whether the insured was insane at the time of the shooting. The strictures...