Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Insurance — auto policies — intentional injury exclusions

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 12, 2013//

Insurance — auto policies — intentional injury exclusions

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 12, 2013//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Insurance — auto policies — intentional injury exclusions

An intentional injury exclusion does not preclude coverage for injuries resulting from reckless driving, absent subjective intent to injure.

“Here, the circuit court found, and the parties do not dispute, that Parks’ driving was so reckless as to be substantially certain to result in injury.  However, the circuit court did not make any finding that Parks actually ‘ha[d] in mind’ or ‘plan[ned]’ to cause injury.  From the start, Parks maintained that he ‘never had [the] subjective intent to crash his vehicle or to cause injury to other highway users,’ and American Family conceded that Parks did not.  In its opening statement to the circuit court, counsel for American Family stated that American Family was ‘not contending that Mr. Parks subjectively intended to hurt anyone.’ In its briefing on appeal, American Family stated, ‘Parks may not have … intended to harm the Fetherstons ….’  And in oral argument on appeal, counsel for American Family acknowledged that while Parks’ conduct in evading the police and weaving in and out of traffic was reckless, unlawful, and intentional, his conduct in losing control of his vehicle was reckless but not intentional, and his conduct in injuring the Fetherstons was also not intentional.  Accordingly, in light of the parties’ mutual concession that subjective intent, the first predicate of the exclusion, did not exist, the exclusion by its plain language does not apply to bar coverage.”

Reversed and Remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2012AP1920 Fetherston v. Parks

Dist. IV, Jefferson County, Hue, J., Kloppenburg, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Curtis, James G., Jr., La Crosse; For Respondent: Kyle, Thomas William, Watertown;

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests