Liebenstein v. Allstate Ins. Co., C2-94-298
| Decision Date | 07 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. C2-94-298,C2-94-298 |
| Parties | John LIEBENSTEIN, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
A homeowner's insurance policy exclusion that bars liability coverage for injuries resulting from a policyholder's criminal acts applies regardless of whether the criminal act was or was not intentional.
Peter J. Schmitz, Schmitz & Ophaug, Northfield, for appellant.
William M. Hart, Kenneth W. Dodge, Meagher & Geer, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Considered and decided by PARKER, P.J., and SCHUMACHER and HOLTAN *, JJ.
Appellant John Liebenstein, as assignee of the insured party, sued respondent Allstate Insurance Company for injuries incurred during a struggle with policyholder Larry Sunde. The district court granted summary judgment, concluding that the policy barred coverage for injuries resulting from Sunde's criminal act of obstructing legal process. We agree and affirm.
In January 1991, Larry Sunde was arrested in Faribault, Minnesota, for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The arresting officer, Al Shuda, handcuffed him and took him to the police station. Officer Shuda testified that Sunde was "a little bit belligerent, which is pretty standard with many intoxicated people."
The jailer, deputy sheriff John Liebenstein, began removing Sunde's handcuffs and placed him against a wall. He ordered Sunde to spread his legs apart and, when he failed to comply, kicked his legs apart. Sunde turned around quickly, struggling with Liebenstein. Liebenstein and the officer again pushed him against the wall and eventually removed the handcuffs. During this struggle, Liebenstein's thumb was dislocated.
Liebenstein testified that he pushed Sunde against the wall because "one loose handcuff is a dangerous weapon." He testified that, during the struggle, his "thumb became entangled in the handcuffs and the down jacket that Mr. Sunde was wearing, and that entanglement caused my thumb to become dislocated." Both Liebenstein and Officer Shuda testified that the injury was accidental and that Sunde had not intended to hurt the jailer and had not tried to hit him.
In April 1991, Sunde pled guilty to a charge of assault in the fifth degree (intentional infliction of bodily harm). He also pled guilty to a charge of obstructing legal process.
Liebenstein filed suit against Sunde to recover damages for his injured thumb. Lunde tendered his defense to Allstate which denied coverage based on the intentional and criminal acts exclusions of Sunde's homeowner's policy. Judgment was entered against Sunde, and he assigned his rights against Allstate to Liebenstein. The district court granted summary judgment against Liebenstein and in favor of respondent Allstate. Liebenstein appeals.
Did the district court err in determining that the criminal act and the intentional act exclusions in Sunde's homeowner's policy bar coverage of the injury resulting from Sunde's acts?
On review of a district court's grant of summary judgment, this court determines whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Betlach v. Wayzata Condominium, 281 N.W.2d 328, 330 (Minn.1979).
The interpretation and construction of an insurance contract is a question of law. Iowa Kemper Ins. Co. v. Stone, 269 N.W.2d 885, 886-87 (Minn.1978). Insurance contracts must be construed according to the terms the parties have used, to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense. Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294, 104 N.W.2d 19, 24 (1960).
The district court's grant of summary judgment against Liebenstein was based on the conclusion that Sunde's homeowner's policy excludes coverage for injuries resulting from intentional acts or from criminal acts. The policy reads, in relevant part, as follows:
1. We do not cover bodily injury or property damage resulting from:
(a) An act or omission intended or expected to cause bodily injury or property damage. This exclusion applies even if the bodily injury or property damage is of a different kind or degree, or is sustained by a different person or property, than intended or expected.
* * * * * *
2. We do not cover bodily injury or property damage resulting from:
(a) a criminal act or omission.
We first examine whether the district court correctly concluded that the criminal act exclusion prohibits recovery for Liebenstein's injury.
Liebenstein testified that his thumb was dislocated during the struggle with Sunde. Sunde pled guilty to and was convicted of two criminal counts: fifth-degree assault and obstructing legal process. It is undisputed that Liebenstein's injury resulted from these criminal acts. The plain language of the policy thus excludes coverage for the injury.
Liebenstein argues, however, that a criminal conviction alone cannot trigger this exclusion. Rather, he urges that coverage is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hadley
...that coverage for injury or damage arising from criminal acts is excluded regardless of the actor's intent. See Liebenstein v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 N.W.2d 73 (Minn.App.1994). Compare Young v. Brown, 658 So.2d 750, 752 (La. App.1995) (holding exclusion for injuries "`which may reasonably b......
-
Swift v. Fitchburg Mut. Ins. Co.
...Hooper v. Allstate Ins. Co., 571 So.2d 1001 (Ala.1990); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Juniel, 931 P.2d 511 (Colo.1996); Liebenstein v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 N.W.2d 73 (Minn.App.1994); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Schmitt, 238 N.J.Super. 619, 570 A.2d 488 (1990); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sowers, 97 Or.App. 658,......
-
American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. White
...fireworks was a misdemeanor and the insured's fireworks exploded, injuring a passenger in the insured's car); Liebenstein v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 N.W.2d 73, 75 (Minn.Ct.App.1994) ("[T]he plain language of the policy indicates that coverage is excluded for injuries resulting from a crimina......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Juniel
...eliminates from coverage more than just intentional crimes or injuries intended or reasonably expected. See Liebenstein v. Allstate Insurance Co., 517 N.W.2d 73 (Minn.Ct.App.1994) (exclusion for damages resulting from criminal act applied to accidental, unintended injury to police officer b......