State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. CF
Decision Date | 23 July 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 87A05-0308-CV-401.,87A05-0308-CV-401. |
Citation | 812 N.E.2d 181 |
Parties | STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant-Defendant, v. C.F. and C.F. b/n/f John and Lisa Faver, Appellees-Plaintiffs, Nicholas Christian and Nicholas Christian b/n/f Mark and Deborah Christian, Appellees-Crossdefendants. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Mark D. Gerth, Kightlinger & Gray, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Timothy J. Hambidge, Olsen, White Hambidge & Williams, LLP, Evansville, IN, Attorney for Appellees.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm") insured Mark and Deborah Christian ("the Christians") through a homeowner's insurance policy. State Farm appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment relating to claims brought against the Christians. We reverse.
State Farm raises three issues for our review, but we find one issue to be dispositive: whether C.F.'s injuries were caused by an "occurrence" and thus covered by the Christians' homeowner's insurance policy.
On March 28, 1997, and again on April 17, 1997, N.C., then twelve years old, sexually abused C.F., who was six years old at the time. The State filed a petition alleging delinquency, and N.C. subsequently admitted to the following counts involving C.F.:
From June 8, 1996, up through and including the time of the incidents of sexual abuse, State Farm insured the Christians, N.C.'s parents, pursuant to its home-owner's insurance policy. The policy contained the following provisions:
Appellant's Index at 24-26 (emphasis in original). Additionally, the policy contained the following definitions for the above terms:
Appellant's Index at 15-16 (emphasis in original).
After N.C. admitted to sexually abusing C.F., C.F. and her parents (collectively, "the Favers") filed a civil action against N.C. and his parents to recover damages she incurred from the sexual abuse. State Farm provided a defense to the Christians pursuant to a reservation of rights. The Favers subsequently filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, requesting the trial court to determine whether State Farm was liable to the Christians under their homeowner's insurance policy for any damages which may be found against the Christians in the Favers' civil action. State Farm eventually filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that its insurance policy did not provide coverage for the Favers' claims against the Christians because, inter alia, C.F.'s injuries did not result from bodily injuries caused by an "occurrence" because the injuries did not result from an accident.
The Favers responded to State Farm's motion and argued that the Christians' policy with State Farm did not exclude C.F.'s injuries because N.C. could not have formed the necessary intent of knowing or intentional, due to his age. After a hearing, the trial court denied State Farm's motion for summary judgment. This appeal ensued.
Embry v. O'Bannon, 798 N.E.2d 157, 159 (Ind.2003) (internal citations omitted).
II. Coverage Under the Policy
The policy provided coverage "[i]f a claim [was] made or a suit [was] brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence...." Appellant's Index at 24 (emphasis omitted). An "occurrence" was defined by the policy as "an accident, including exposure to conditions, which results in a. bodily injury; or b. property damage; during the policy period." Appellant's Index at 16 (emphasis omitted). The policy did not define the term "accident." We have previously stated, however, that "[i]n the context of insurance coverage, an accident means an unexpected happening without an intention or design." Terre Haute First Nat'l Bank v. Pac. Employers Ins. Co., 634 N.E.2d 1336, 1338 (Ind.Ct.App.1993).
State Farm contends the policy does not cover C.F.'s injuries because N.C. intentionally committed his acts, and therefore, C.F.'s injuries did not result from an occurrence, or accident. The Favers argue that C.F.'s injuries resulted from an occurrence because N.C. was unable to form the necessary intent to commit his acts due to his age. We agree with State Farm.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Save the Valley, Inc. v. Indiana-Kentucky Elec. Corp.
...are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. C.F., 812 N.E.2d 181, 183 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). "When there are no disputed facts with regard to a motion for summary judgment and the question presented is a p......
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pipchok
...in Indiana consistently have held that such intentional conduct does not constitute an "occurrence". State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. C.F., 812 N.E.2d 181, 185 (Ind. App. 2004); West, 107 F.3d at 536 (explaining that it can be inferred from a defendant's acts of child molestation that he i......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sanders
...that when someone is found to have done something "knowingly" that means it wasn't an accident. See e.g. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. C.F., 812 N.E.2d 181, 185 (Ind. App. 2004); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. C.W., 2010 WL 597930 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 17, 2010). This is because people act "knowin......
-
Marling Family Trust v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...issues are issues of law. Where the dispute is one of law, not fact, our standard of review is de novo. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. C.F., 812 N.E.2d 181, 184 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trans. denied. Specifically, the parties dispute the applicability of this Court's holding in Lakeshore based ......