Daughter v. Dad Insurance Coverage Dispute

Obtained judgment on the pleadings in favor of an insurance company in a declaratory judgment action. The insurance coverage dispute arose from an alleged assault & battery claim brought against an insured by his daughter. The daughter alleged that while being assaulted by an employee of the insured, the insured pulled out a gun, cocked it and aimed it at individuals who were trying to stop the assault.  The defense successfully argued that the insurer did not owe any defense and indemnity obligations under the homeowners and umbrella policies issued to the insured because the allegations in the underlying complaint failed to allege bodily injury caused by an occurrence or, in the alternative, the intentional conduct exclusions precluded coverage.  The court agreed with both arguments and granted the insurance company's motion. The plaintiff appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. While the insured did not explicitly challenge the trial court's consideration of the allegations in the underlying action complaint in determining coverage obligations, he argued that the trial court should have looked beyond the allegations to his inferred intent—namely, that he was not the aggressor but, rather, was acting only in self defense. The Superior Court rejected this argument and held that the inferred intent doctrine did not apply to the consideration of duty to defend and indemnity issues in cases not involving child sexual abuse. Rather, the Superior Court held that the duty to defend determination was to be made based on the factual allegations.