The nation celebrated in 1933 when passage of the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution brought an end to the era of prohibition. Well of course it did. It meant that bar fight coverage cases could now be back in courtrooms. Who doesn’t love a good bar fight coverage case? They bring the promise of interesting coverage issues and an entertaining back story about what led to the assault.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s recent decision in State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Massi, No. 16-169 (E.D. Pa. May 26, 2016) is a good bar fight coverage cases. Admittedly it is light on the details of what led to the altercation (it’s always disappointing when courts skimp in that category), but makes up for it with a superb legal issue.
[As an aside, in the Wow, what a coincidence category, at the time I was preparing this article I ran into Brad Mortensen, of Carroll McNulty Kull, in the Liberty Place food court. Brad (along with Beth Sutton) represented State Farm in Massi. Speak of the coverage devil, I said to him. We discussed the case – as well as our shared disappointment that the sushi place in the food court had recently closed. I wish I could get insight from an involved lawyer at the time of all of my case write-ups.]
Massi goes like this. Ronald Mannon sued Mark Massi for assaulting him at R.P. McMurphy’s in Holmes, Pennsylvania. Mannon alleged that Massi was “visibly intoxicated and acting in a violent, uncivilized, unruly and inappropriate manner.” Massi was allegedly involved in multiple verbal and physical confrontations with other bar patrons. Bar security asked Massi to tone it down. Massi later allegedly struck Mannon in the face with a billiard ball. [He first called “eight ball, side socket.”]
State Farm, Massi’s homeowner’s insurer, undertook his defense under a reservation of rights, and filed an action seeking a declaration that it did not owe him a duty to defend or indemnify. State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment came before the court.
At issue was whether Mannon’s injuries were caused by an “occurrence,” defined in the policy as an accident, which the court described as “an unexpected and undesirable event occurring unintentionally, and that the key term in the definition of the ‘accident’ is ‘unexpected’ which implies a degree of fortuity.” Further, the court stated that “[w]hether the conduct at issue was accidental must be analyzed from Massi’s perspective. Qualifying something as an accident, therefore, depends on both the degree of foreseeability and the state of mind of the actor in intending the result. Conduct is not ‘accidental’ if the resulting injury ‘was the natural and expected result of the insured's actions.’” (citations omitted).
In the context of this analysis the court made the following – significant – observation: “Neither party disputes that Mannon’s injuries were the foreseeable consequence of Massi’s actions. This does not end the inquiry, however, given that ‘imbibed intoxicants must be considered in determining if the actor has the ability to formulate an intent.’ If the allegations establish that Massi lacked the ability to formulate intent, the resulting act cannot be intentional. The mere fact that Massi was intoxicated, however, does not mean his actions should be automatically classified as accidental. Massi’s level of intoxication ‘would have to be so severe that a court could find that [he] did not intend the natural and probable consequences of his actions.’” (citations omitted).
Massi argued that the court should “interpret the allegations that he was ‘visibly intoxicated’ and an ‘unreasonable hazard to himself, members of the public and other patrons’ to mean that he lacked the ability to formulate the requisite intent.” State Farm countered that the allegations, as a whole, portrayed an intentional assault and battery committed by Massi.
The court agreed with State Farm: “Massi’s actions cannot reasonably be classified as anything other than intentional conduct. Despite Mannon’s ‘artful pleading, the factual allegations portray an intentional act for which there is no coverage under the policy. The complaint alleges Massi was ‘acting in a violent, uncivilized, unruly and inappropriate manner.’ He was involved in multiple verbal and physical confrontations with other patrons. At approximately 1:33 a.m., security asked Massi to deescalate ‘an altercation with other patrons inside [the bar].’ Sometime thereafter, Massi punched Mannon in the face and knocked him unconscious. Mannon also alleges that Massi ‘maliciously, wrongfully and offensively’ struck him ‘in the face with a billiard ball.’ Nothing alleged indicates that Massi did not intend the ‘natural and expected’ consequences of his actions.” (emphasis in original).
On one hand, in general, Massi resembles those cases where a court is not willing a find that injury was caused by an “accident,” even if the complaint says it was, if such allegations are belied by the facts as a whole. Think of the plaintiff who alleges that the insured stabbed him eleven times – and he did so negligently. In other words, Massi is a case of a court not being fooled by artful pleadings designed to secure insurance resources for the defendant.
However, while the decision is less than crystal clear, Massi also did not seem to reject the possibility that, in the right case – a lesser level of intentional violence and more drinking alleged -- a defendant’s conduct could be accidental, because he or she was so intoxicated that they could not intend the natural and probable consequences of their actions. Thus, this is now the second recent decision, from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, leaving open the possibility of an insured being able to drink himself into coverage – but the reward only being available if they got really plastered. The other decision was IDS Property Casualty Ins. Co. v. Schonewolf, 111 F. Supp. 3d 618 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (See July 15, 2015 issue of Coverage Opinions). Something about this just doesn’t seem right. |