Hanover Ins. Co. v. Newcomer, No. 29813
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | MANFORD |
| Citation | 585 S.W.2d 285 |
| Decision Date | 31 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 29813 |
| Parties | HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. Douglas NEWCOMER and Samantha Locke, Appellants. |
Page 285
v.
Douglas NEWCOMER and Samantha Locke, Appellants.
Page 286
Joseph H. Moore, Kansas City, for appellants.
Joseph B. Bott, Kansas City, for respondent.
Before SOMERVILLE, P. J., and PRITCHARD and MANFORD, JJ.
MANFORD, Judge.
Appeal from declaratory judgment, concluding that policy afforded no coverage for actions of insured within the terms of the policy. Affirmed.
This case, having been tried to the court, is reviewed and disposed of pursuant to Rule 73.01.
Appellant Douglas B. Newcomer was a named insured under a homeowner's policy issued by respondent.
On June 15, 1974, Newcomer and Samantha Locke went to an afternoon party. They returned to Miss Locke's residence at approximately 5:30 p. m. At 7:00 p. m., Newcomer and Miss Locke attended another party until sometime between 11:30 p. m. and midnight. At both parties, Newcomer consumed alcoholic beverages. Either en route to and from the parties and/or while at these parties, he smoked more than one marijuana cigarette. He had lost the keys to his motor vehicle at the second party, so he and Miss Locke were driven to his residence by one Teddy Johnstone. Upon their arrival at his residence, Newcomer was screaming and shouting in a threatening manner toward Miss Locke and Mr. Johnstone. His screaming and yelling included threats to kill Miss Locke and Mr. Johnstone.
Newcomer was let out of the Johnstone vehicle at his residence. As Miss Locke and Mr. Johnstone drove away, Newcomer was standing in the middle of the street, screaming and shouting. Miss Locke and Mr. Johnstone drove around the block and returned to Newcomer's residence. Miss Locke went inside.
Miss Locke testified upon entry to Newcomer's residence, she observed Newcomer with a ceremonial machete hanging from his belt. Miss Locke further testified he attempted to secure a container of marijuana from a drawer and she attempted to get the container away from him. At this point, he threw Miss Locke against a wall and began throwing pool balls, which were on his pool table, all around the room. Again, Miss Locke attempted to stop him, this time being thrown to the floor. Miss Locke testified at this point she attempted to leave, and Newcomer began swinging the machete around the room. He approached Miss Locke, according to her testimony, a distance of approximately 12 feet while swinging the machete, striking her right leg in the groin area.
Newcomer testified he did not remember yelling or screaming, but did recall throwing the pool balls and swinging the machete. It was his testimony that he chopped the door jams in the living room, and that he struck the pool table with the machete. He also recalled striking Miss Locke with the machete, but contended the striking of Miss Locke's leg was the continuation of a chopping action on the door frame.
Miss Locke was removed to the hospital by Teddy Johnstone, who upon entry into Newcomer's residence, sprayed Newcomer with mace.
Miss Locke filed claims against Newcomer for damages. While these claims were pending, respondent filed this action herein, seeking to avoid coverage under the personal liability provision of its policy. Miss Locke then filed suit against Newcomer in four counts. That petition sought damages as follows: Count I compensatory damages
Page 287
for intentional assault; Count II punitive damages for intentional assault; Count III compensatory damages for wanton and reckless conduct without presence of mind and Count IV punitive damages for wanton and reckless conduct.The policy of insurance which was admitted into evidence contained the liability coverage portion, as well as the exclusion referred to in respondent's second amended petition. These portions of the policy read as follows:
"SECTION II
This Company agrees to pay on behalf of the Insured all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage, to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence."
and the exclusionary clause:
"This policy does not apply :
1. Under Coverage E Personal liability and Coverage F Medical Payments to Others : . . .
f. to bodily injury or property damage which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the Insured.
Pending this appeal, Miss Locke dismissed Counts I, II and IV of her petition. Upon a later date, a stipulation of dismissal was filed regarding Count III of her petition.
On appeal, two points are raised. First, Newcomer contends the injuries he caused were the accidental results of his actions and the trial court erred in declaring that respondent's policy did not cover Newcomer's acts as there was no "occurrence" as defined in the policy. Secondly, the trial court erred in declaring respondent had no duty to defend Newcomer in the suit for damages brought by Miss Locke under Count III of her petition.
Both points are taken up and ruled against Newcomer. The evidence on the record speaks for itself.
The facts are undisputed relative to Newcomer's having struck Miss Locke apparently while he was intoxicated and under the influence of marijuana. Newcomer's sole contention is premised upon his state of mind at the time of the blow struck upon Miss Locke. He would have the court conclude that since he intended no resulting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v. Paul
...631 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Mo. App. 1982); Truck Ins. Exchange v. Pickering, 642 S.W.2d 113, 116 (Mo. App. 1982); Hanover Ins. Co. v. Newcomer, 585 S.W.2d 285 (Mo. App. 11. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). 12. Id. at 381. ---------......
-
Wiley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 92-3137
...no consequence, for the law must not permit the use of such stimuli to become a defense for one's actions." Hanover Ins. Co. v. Newcomer, 585 S.W.2d 285, 289 (Mo.Ct.App.1979); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hampton, 173 Mich.App. 65, 433 N.W.2d 334 (1988) (sexual child abuse case) (relying on Allstat......
-
Group Ins. Co. of Michigan v. Czopek, Docket No. 90390
...criminal responsibility is a matter of legislative and, therefore, public policy. 23 Op. at p. 448. 24 See Hanover Ins. Co. v. Newcomer, 585 S.W.2d 285, 289 (Mo.App.1979); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Cole, 631 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Mo.App.1982); American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peterson, 405 N.W.2d 41......
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tully, No. 19600.
...257 (Iowa 1998) ; Group Ins. Co. of Michigan v. Czopek, 440 Mich. 590, 600–601, 489 N.W.2d 444 (1992) ; Hanover Ins. Co. v. Newcomer, 585 S.W.2d 285, 289 (Mo.App.1979) ; Beckwith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 120 Nev. 23, 27, 83 P.3d 275 (2007).The third approach deems it appropriate f......
-
James v. Paul
...631 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Mo. App. 1982); Truck Ins. Exchange v. Pickering, 642 S.W.2d 113, 116 (Mo. App. 1982); Hanover Ins. Co. v. Newcomer, 585 S.W.2d 285 (Mo. App. 11. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). 12. Id. at 381. ---------......
-
Wiley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 92-3137
...no consequence, for the law must not permit the use of such stimuli to become a defense for one's actions." Hanover Ins. Co. v. Newcomer, 585 S.W.2d 285, 289 (Mo.Ct.App.1979); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hampton, 173 Mich.App. 65, 433 N.W.2d 334 (1988) (sexual child abuse case) (relying on Allstat......
-
Group Ins. Co. of Michigan v. Czopek, Docket No. 90390
...criminal responsibility is a matter of legislative and, therefore, public policy. 23 Op. at p. 448. 24 See Hanover Ins. Co. v. Newcomer, 585 S.W.2d 285, 289 (Mo.App.1979); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Cole, 631 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Mo.App.1982); American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peterson, 405 N.W.2d 41......
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tully, No. 19600.
...257 (Iowa 1998) ; Group Ins. Co. of Michigan v. Czopek, 440 Mich. 590, 600–601, 489 N.W.2d 444 (1992) ; Hanover Ins. Co. v. Newcomer, 585 S.W.2d 285, 289 (Mo.App.1979) ; Beckwith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 120 Nev. 23, 27, 83 P.3d 275 (2007).The third approach deems it appropriate f......