An insured who incites an assault is not entitled to coverage under a homeowner's policy, even if the allegations are framed in negligence.
An insured was sued in negligence for inciting a group of people to assault a plaintiff. The insured sought a defence for the action from his homeowner's insurance policy. The Ontario Supreme Court determined that the action of the insured fell within the intentional act exclusion clause of the policy and that the insured was not entitled to coverage under his insurance policy.
Here is the citation: Lemieux v. Laclair [2007] O.J. No. 2792. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. T.D. Ray J. June 28, 2007.
Here is a link to the cite.
This case was originally summarized by Shanti Davies and edited by David Pilley.
The plaintiff in the main action claimed against the Insured and others for personal injury resulting from an alleged assault. The particular allegations against the Insured were for inciting the other defendants to assault the plaintiff and/or continue the assault, and inciting the other defendants and expressing his own intention not to assist or obtain medical attention for the plaintiff following the assault.
The Insurer took the position that the allegations against the Insured in the Statement of Claim fell within two exclusion clauses in the policy of insurance. The first exclusion clause was for "physical abuse or assault", which is done "at the direction of, or with the knowledge of any person insured by this policy, or failure of any person insured by this policy to take steps to prevent" such physical abuse or assault. The second exclusion clause was for "bodily injury or property damage caused intentionally by" the insured or at the insured’s direction or "resulting from your [the insured’s] criminal acts or omissions".
The Court concluded that the impugned paragraphs in the Statement of Claim containing the particular allegations against the Insured clearly fell within the exclusion clauses. The Court dismissed the third party claim against the Insurer and ordered the Insured to pay to the Insurer the costs of the application, which were fixed at $3,500, as well as the Insurer’s costs in the action, which were fixed at $2,500.
