Summary
In Edie, Farmers brought a complaint against its insureds, Ronald and Judy Edie, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Edies were not covered under their insurance policy for a physical and sexual assault suit filed against them by their daughter, April. The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury "`[a]rising as a result of intentional acts of an insured[.
Summary of this case from Farmers Insurance v. HembreeOpinion
No. 20949-3-I.
June 20, 1988.
[1] Insurance — Exclusions — Intentional Injury — Assault. For purposes of an exclusion from liability insurance coverage for bodily injury arising as a result of an insured's intentional acts, an insured acts intentionally by physically and sexually assaulting a victim.
Nature of Action: An insurer sought a judicial determination that an insurance policy did not cover any damages awarded in an assault action brought against the insureds by their daughter.
Superior Court: The Superior Court for King County, No. 86-2-07632-8, Jerome M. Johnson, J., on August 14, 1987, granted a summary judgment in favor of the insurer. Court of Appeals: Holding that the daughter's action was based on intentional acts which were excluded from coverage, the court affirms the judgment.
Mark W. Davis and Curran, Kleweno Johnson, for appellants.
Patricia C. Fetterly and Davies Pearson, P.C., for respondent.
Farmers Insurance Company brought a complaint against its insureds, Ronald and Judy Edie, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Edies were not covered under their insurance for a physical and sexual assault suit filed against them by their daughter, April. On Farmers' motion for summary judgment, the court held the Edies were not covered, but that counsel retained by Farmers had an obligation to defend them through trial and entry of judgment in superior court. The Edies appeal.
[1] The trial court was correct in determining the Edies were not covered for the suit by their insurance. Farmers' policy excluded coverage for bodily injury "[a]rising as a result of intentional acts of an insured," and April's suit was based on the intentional acts of "an" insured, Ronald. See Rodriguez v. Williams, 107 Wn.2d 381, 729 P.2d 627 (1986); see also U.S.F. G. Ins. Co. v. Brannan, 22 Wn. App. 341, 348, 589 P.2d 817 (1979).
[A]lleged claims which are clearly not covered by the policy relieve the insurer of its right and duty to defend.
State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. v. Emerson, 102 Wn.2d 477, 486, 687 P.2d 1139 (1984).
Farmers supplied the Edies with independent legal services throughout the litigation, defending at all times under a comprehensive reservation of rights. Farmers' reservation of rights defense was proper, see Tank v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co., 105 Wn.2d 381, 391, 715 P.2d 1133 (1986), and the Edies have not shown any prejudice that would lead to a successful claim that Farmers was estopped from denying coverage.
The judgment is affirmed.
WINSOR, J., and SCHUMACHER, J. Pro Tem., concur.