Procedural Posture: corporate attorneys in California
Plaintiff insured appealed summary judgment by the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California) for defendant insurer holding there was no duty to defend insured against a complaint by insured's wife for assault and battery.
Overview
Defendant insurer's homeowner policy issued to plaintiff insured excluded coverage of bodily injury to insureds and defined insureds to include residents of plaintiff's household. In an action for defendant's failure to defend plaintiff in an assault and battery action by plaintiff's wife, summary judgment for defendant was affirmed. Although plaintiff was separated from his wife at the time of the altercations, they remained in the same household. The court held the same household resident exclusion applied to spouses living under the same roof. Because plaintiff and his wife were both insureds, an exclusion of claims between insureds applied. The trial court was not required to take judicial notice of two unrelated cases in which defendant took an inconsistent position. The language of the exclusion was unambiguous, and evidence from other litigation would have been irrelevant.
Outcome
Summary judgment for defendant insurer was affirmed in plaintiff insured's action seeking a defense of assault and battery charges by his wife. Although separated, plaintiff and his wife still shared the same house, and a homeowner policy exclusion for injury to members of his household applied.
Comentários