TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.
This case presents the question of whether a farm insurance policy for bodily injury and property damage requires the insurer to indemnify its insured against a civil judgment that arose from the insured dismembering his mother's dead body with an axe, setting parts of her body on fire, and then distributing her remains on the family farm. The Court answers this question "no."
Plaintiff Great American Assurance Company filed this action seeking a declaration that the Agripak Farm and Ranch Policy ("the Policy") it issued to Martha Elizabeth Elliott ("Mrs. Elliott" or "the Mother") did not require Great American to defend or indemnify her son, William Robert Elliott ("William"), an additional insured under the Policy, in a civil suit brought against William by his siblings, Douglas Elliott ("Douglas") and Mary Ann Hooper ("Hooper") for claims related to William's actions in disposing of their mother's body. See Doc. 1. Great American has moved for summary judgment, claiming that the allegations in the civil suit against William did not trigger either a duty to defend or a duty to indemnify under the terms of the Policy. Doc 14. At the time Great American filed its motion for summary judgment, William had recently been convicted and sentenced in Suwannee County, Florida of first degree murder of his mother, abuse of her dead body, and tampering with evidence. Doc. 14, Ex. A. Douglas and Hooper filed a response to the first motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19), Great American filed a reply (Doc. 25) and Douglas and Hooper filed a sur-reply (Doc. 31).
While the parties were filing their papers relating to the first motion for summary judgment, the underlying civil suit was proceeding in Suwannee County. Great American had provided counsel for William under a reservation of rights and had itself moved to intervene for the limited purpose of securing a stay of the civil action until this declaratory judgment action could be decided. The Suwannee County court, however, denied the motion to stay,
Defendants Douglas and Hooper then filed a motion asking the Court to proceed with its consideration of the pending motions for summary judgment in this case. Doc. 70. This motion was unopposed by Great American.
"Summary judgment is appropriate in declaratory judgment actions seeking a declaration of coverage when the insurer's duty, if any, rests solely on the applicability of the insurance policy, the construction and effect of which is a matter of law." Northland Cas. Co. v. HBE Corp., 160 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1358 (M.D.Fla. 2001) (citation omitted). The parties agree that Florida law governs the interpretation of the insurance policy at issue. Under Florida law, "[w]hen assessing an insurance dispute, the insured has the burden of proving that a claim against it is covered by the policy, and the insurer has the burden of proving an exclusion to coverage." Key Custom Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 450 F.Supp.2d 1311, 1316 (M.D.Fla.2006) (citations omitted). "[I]n construing insurance policies, courts should read each policy as a whole, endeavoring to give every provision its full meaning and operative effect." United States Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So.2d 871, 877 (Fla.2007). "Insurance contracts are construed according to their plain meaning, with any ambiguities construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage." Id. (citations omitted).
The parties first dispute whether Douglas and Hooper's claims against William in the underlying civil case are covered claims under the terms of the Policy.
When determining whether Great American has a duty to indemnify under the terms of the Policy,
Douglas and Hooper argue that the jury's finding of negligence in the Suwannee suit implies that William did not intend to cause them harm. They further argue that, even if the jury's verdict is ignored, there is no direct evidence that William intended to harm them, as opposed to their mother. Doc. 47 at 2.
The jury verdict in the underlying case, however, does not specifically address whether William intended or expected to cause Douglas and Hooper harm.
The Court also rejects Douglas and Hooper's contention that, to show that their damages were not caused by an "occurrence," Great American must advance direct evidence that William had the specific intent to cause them harm. Douglas and Hooper rely primarily on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in CTC Development, which holds that tort principles do not apply to the insurance definition of an "occurrence." Because tort principles do not apply, an injury may be accidental (and thus constitute an "occurrence") even if the injury was "reasonably foreseeable" or a "natural and probable consequence." In other words, under CTC Development, to show that Douglas and Hooper's damages are not covered under the Policy, Great American must show that William acted with the actual intent or expectation to cause them harm; therefore, it would not be enough for Great American to show that harm should have been intended or expected under an objective standard.
The court in CTC Development, however, also stated that a court may infer as a matter of law an intent or expectation to cause harm "in cases where the insured's actions were so inherently dangerous or harmful that injury was sure to follow." 720 So.2d at 1076. Thus, direct evidence of the insured's state of mind is not always required because, in some cases, intent can be inferred from the nature of the insured's actions.
For example, in Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 546 So.2d 1051 (Fla.1989), an insurance company brought a declaratory judgment action against a defendant who was alleged to have sexually abused children. Although the defendant argued that her diminished mental capacity prevented her from forming the specific intent to harm the children, the court held that "harm always results from sexual abuse[,] so that any intent to commit abuse necessarily carries with it an intent to commit harm." State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 720 So.2d at 1076 (summarizing Landis).
Admittedly, this case is not identical to Landis. Unlike the insured in Landis, William did not directly cause physical harm to Douglas and Hooper. However, the Court finds that harm to a son or daughter necessarily results when a sibling mutilates, ingests, and improperly disposes of their mother's corpse. In other words, "the act and the harm cannot be separated," id., because William's actions "were so inherently dangerous or harmful that injury was sure to follow," CTC Development, 720 So.2d at 1076. William's intent to dismember his mother's dead body and distribute her remains over the family property thus necessarily carries with it as a matter of law an inferred intent to harm Douglas and Hooper.
Other cases have likewise found that, if an insured intentionally causes physical injury to another, and this injury results in harm to a family member (such as emotional distress or loss of consortium), the harm to the family member is not "accidental," as that term is used in an insurance contract. In Hatmaker v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 308 F.Supp.2d 1308 (M.D.Fla.2004), for example, Robert Hatmaker suffered serious physical injuries during an altercation with the insured. He then brought suit for assault, battery, and negligence, and his wife, also a plaintiff in the suit, brought a claim for loss of consortium. The parties ultimately entered into a settlement agreement that apportioned a specific amount to the wife's claim for loss of consortium. The court in Hatmaker held that the damages awarded in the settlement, including the damages for the wife's consortium claim, were not covered under the insured's homeowner's policy because they resulted from the insured's intentional harming of Hatmaker. Although the court did not discuss this issue, it did not require the insurance company to prove that the insured had the specific intent to cause harm to Hatmaker's wife. See also Reyes v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 943 So.2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding that the plaintiff's claims for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress would not be covered under the policy if the defendant had intentionally shot the plaintiff's spouse). Similarly, in this case Great American is not required to present direct evidence that William had the subjective intention to harm his siblings when he murdered their mother and mutilated her body.
In sum, although there is no Florida case directly on point, the import of these cases is that, because William intentionally killed his mother and mutilated her corpse, it can be inferred as a matter of law that he intended or expected to cause harm to his siblings. Because this was no "accident," Douglas and Hooper's damages in the underlying case were not caused by an "occurrence." Great American thus has no duty to indemnify William.
Doc. 1, Ex. B at 2 (emphasis added). Generally, under such intentional act exclusions, "coverage is not excluded as a matter of law where there was an `intentional act' but not an `intentionally caused' injury." Cloud v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. of Shelby, Ohio, 248 So.2d 217, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Great American thus must demonstrate that William expected or intended to cause injury through his actions. However, so long as William intended to cause bodily injury or property damage of some kind, all resulting injuries are excluded from coverage, even if such damage is "sustained by a different person ... than initially expected or intended." Doc. 1, Ex. B at 2.
Although there is no direct evidence that William specifically intended to harm Douglas and Hooper, there is no doubt that William intended to cause "`bodily injury' or `property damage'" to his mother. See, e.g., Doc. 47 at 14.
Accordingly, it is hereby
1. Great American's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Duty to Indemnify (Doc. 42) is
3. The Clerk shall enter a declaratory judgment that Great American Assurance Company has no duty under its Agripak Farm and Ranch Policy to indemnify William Robert Elliott for his intentional actions which resulted in damages to Mary Ann Hooper and Douglas Elliott. Therefore Great American Assurance Company is not liable for the jury verdict and judgment against William Robert Elliott in the underlying state court civil action.
Douglas and Hooper have alternatively characterized William's liability for negligent handling of a corpse as arising from "interruption of the limited property rights of disposition." Doc. 47 at 8. Under the terms of the Policy, however, "property damage" refers to damage to "tangible property," and thus interference with Douglas and Hooper's intangible rights of disposition would not qualify as "property damage."
Moreover, William's liability for negligent diminution of property value did not arise from "property damage," as that term is used in the Policy. "Property Damage" is defined as "physical injury to tangible property" or "loss of use of tangible property." Simply put, "property damage" does not include a diminution in economic value that is not caused by physical injury or some loss of use. Here, there are no allegations that the property was physically damaged or that it is no longer suitable for any particular use. William's liability for negligent diminution in value is thus not covered under the Policy. See Lazzara Oil Co. v. Columbia Casualty Co., 683 F.Supp. 777, 780 (M.D.Fla.1988) ("[P]ure economic losses do not constitute damage or injury to tangible property."); Old Republic Insurance Co. v. West Flagler Associates, Ltd., 419 So.2d 1174, 1177-78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (finding no "property damage" because "[o]nly the tickets' economic value, i.e., an intangible, was alleged to have been diminished").
Douglas and Hooper further contend that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine should bar review of Judge Fina's order. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, "a United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings.... The doctrine applies not only to claims actually raised in the state court, but also to claims that were not raised in the state court but are `inextricably intertwined' with the state court's judgment." Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466 (11th Cir.1996) (quotations omitted). However, "a claim that [a party] had no opportunity to raise in state court cannot be barred by Rooker-Feldman." Torchia v. State of Fla. Office on Fin. Inst. and Sec. Regulation, 168 Fed.Appx. 922, 923 (11th Cir. 2006). Here, there is no "final judgment of a state court" because the issue of the applicability of the intentional act exclusion was not before Judge Fina and no final ruling was rendered. Moreover, Great American had no reasonable opportunity to raise its claim regarding coverage because it intervened only for the limited purpose of moving to stay the proceedings. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is thus inapplicable.
Given the Court's determination that it is not bound by Judge Fina's July 23, 2009 Order, Great American's Motion to Strike (Doc. 77) will be denied as moot.
