Parker v. So. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., No. CA 08-568.
In an undoubtedly weird case, two neighbors in rural Arkansas shot at each other across the fence line. Ron Parker shot at Gene Graves, who returned fire. The Graves’ shot hit Mr. Parker, killing him instantly, and then hit his wife, Laura, who was nearby. Mrs. Parker was seriously and permanently injured.
Mrs. Parker sued Mr. Graves, who had a homeowner’s and general liability policies through Farm Bureau. The insurance company filed an independent declaratory judgment action to determine if coverage existed. Farm Bureau argued that coverage was excluded under the “intentional acts” provision of the policies. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment to the insurance company.
On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals agreed that the homeowner’s policy language excluded coverage for “expected or unexpected results of [intentional] acts.” The language of the general liability policy, however, was not as clear: “This policy does not apply . . . to injury, sickness, disease, death or destruction of property arising out of an act by any insured that is intentionally designed to do harm to others.” The court had two problems with the trial court’s ruling: (1) the language could reasonably be construed to exclude only injuries to “others” who were intended to be harmed and not just any person who happened to be there and (2) a reasonable person could find that Mr. Graves intended to shoot in self defense but not with the design to do harm. Because of these flaws, the court reversed the trial court’s decision.
