Halloran & Sage obtained a pair of favorable summary judgment rulings in Federal Court barring coverage under homeowners’ policies on the basis that the conduct alleged in the underlying complaint was essentially intentional tortious conduct and did not constitute an occurrence under the defendant/insured’s policy. On this basis, the courts ruled that the insured was not obligated to defend or indemnify the insured.

1. Truck Insurance Exchange v. Cherrie Spada, 2007 WL 2071629 (Covello, J). The first ruling was in a case based upon a bar fight in which the defendant insured, Cherrie Spada, punched the underlying plaintiff, Alison Yering, in the nose. The insured, a stay at home mom, was pro se in the lawsuit. Upon Truck Insurance’s filing of summary judgment, Judge Covello reasoned that plaintiff Yering’s intentional tort claims did not constitute an "occurrence" that would trigger coverage under the policy. Judge Covello reasoned further that, although the plaintiff had labeled one of her claims "negligent infliction of emotional distress," the facts for the negligence claim were the same as for the intentional tort claims, and therefore the actions did not constitute an occurrence under the policy.

2. Truck Insurance Exchange v. Joseph Mager et al., 2007 WL 3119531 (Eginton, J). The second ruling was in a case involving domestic violence in which the insured beat the victim from room to room in his house and threatened to kill her by holding a loaded shotgun to her head. The insured subsequently died and the plaintiff/victim sued the insured’s estate. On summary judgment, Judge Eginton ruled that the facts alleged in the underlying complaint were "indisputably" intentional and did not fall into the policy’s definition of "occurrence," thus coverage was barred. Judge Eginton ruled further that, even if the plaintiff could maintain that the insured’s conduct constituted an "occurrence", it would be excluded under the "physical abuse" exclusion of the subject policy.