On November 19, 2018, Judge Denise Casper of the United States District Court sitting in Boston denied summary judgment for the Amica Mutual Insurance Company (“Amica”) in its suit against four Defendants: Isaac Rivera (“Isaac”), Jesus Rivera (“Jesus”), Carmen Pozo-Rivera (“Carmen”) and Ryan Morrell, a Leominster police officer (“Officer Morrell”) seeking a declaratory judgment that Amica has no liability in connection with a bodily injury lawsuit brought against Isaac by one of the four police officers (Officer Morrell) who arrested him in his home.
Facts leading to insureds’ convictions including assault and battery on a police officer
On October 16, 2016, the Leominster police responded to a parking lot in the town based on a report of an altercation and a woman screaming. Isaac Rivera, then 20 years old, had smashed out a car window and assaulted his girlfriend. The girlfriend told the police that Isaac had picked her up from work and had hit her twice while supposedly driving her to her father’s home. Instead of driving her to the father’s Isaac had driven her to the parking lot. When Isaac had got out of the car, his girlfriend locked all of the doors and called her father. Isaac then smashed a car window with his fist, climbed through the door, hit and started choking the girlfriend. The police arrested Isaac and charged him with assault by way of strangulation and suffocation; assault and battery on a family or household member; intimidating a witness; and malicious damage to his girlfriend’s motor vehicle.
On October 17, 2016, Isaac was released on his own recognizance to reappear at his next hearing date. The same day, the Leominster District Court granted Isaac’s girlfriend a temporary restraining order barring Isaac from contacting her.
The next day, October 18, 2016, Isaac’s girlfriend went to the Leominster Police Department to report that Isaac had called her cell phone four times on October 17, 2016, and six times on October 18, 2016. She also advised the police that Isaac had called her brother and threatened to kill everyone “if he gets locked up…”
Four Leominster police officers, including Officer Morrell, went to Isaac’s home that afternoon to arrest him for violating the District Court’s no-contact order. The officers based their decision to go in force on Isaac’s prior criminal record and that he was twenty-years-old and weighed 245 pounds.[pullquote] In the ensuing melee between Isaac and the four police officers, Isaac smashed into a china cabinet and cut his hand on the broken glass. Officer Morrell’s had his hand crushed against a wall.[/pullquote]
When the police arrived at the insured premises owned by Isaac’s parents, Isaac was showering. The police allowed him to go to his room to dress. After he dressed, an officer attempted to handcuff Isaac. At first, Isaac protested verbally, and then physically broke the officer’s grip and moved forward violently. In the ensuing melee between Isaac and the four police officers, Isaac smashed into a china cabinet and cut his hand on the broken glass. Officer Morrell’s had his hand crushed against a wall.
The officers eventually arrested Isaac by subduing him with a Taser gun.
The new charges against Isaac were the violation of an abuse prevention order; intimidating a police official; threatening to commit a crime; resisting arrest, and assault and battery on a police officer.
On January 17, 2017, Isaac pled guilty to resisting arrest and assault and battery on a police officer (Officer Morrell), and was sentenced to serve ninety days in jail on each charge with the sentences to run concurrently.
Officer Morrell sues Isaac for injury to his dominant hand
Less than a month after Isaac pled guilty, Officer Morrell sued Isaac in the Worcester County Superior Court alleging that Isaac had negligently injured him while in the course of resisting lawful arrest. The injury to Officer Morrell’s necessitated surgery on his right hand.
His suit sought medical expenses and lost wages, exclusive of conscious pain and suffering, totaling $42,000.
Amica files a declaratory judgment against insureds and Office Morrell claiming no coverage
Amica had issued a homeowner’s policy to Isaac’s parents, Carmen and Jesus, for the property where the police arrested Isaac. Isaac lived with them, and there was no dispute that he was a household member and insured. The personal liability coverage limit under the policy was $300,000.
Upon receiving the summons from Officer Morrell’s suit, Isaac’s parents notified Amica and asked it to defend and indemnify Isaac under the terms of the policy.
On May 30, 2017, Amica sued Isaac’s parents and Isaac as insureds along with Officer Morrell as a necessary party in Federal Court in Boston seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Isaac under his parents’ homeowner policy for Officer Morrell’s suit.
Neither Isaac nor his parents filed an answer to Amica’s complaint, and they were defaulted. However, Officer Morrell through counsel did answer and contested Amica’s right to deny coverage for his claim.
Amica moves for summary judgment based on Isaac’s conviction for assaulting Officer Morrell
On September 13, 2018, Judge Casper heard Amica’s motion for summary judgment and Officer Morrell’s opposition.
Amica’s argument based on the homeowner policy’s terms was:
- Ryan Morrell’s injuries were expected or intended by Amica’s insured, Isaac Rivera as a matter of law, and were not caused by an accident;
- Amica’s policy does not provide liability coverage for bodily injury that is expected or intended, and that is not caused by an accident;
In support of its arguments, Amica pointed out that when Isaac pleaded guilty to the assault and battery on Officer Morrell, he acknowledged in open court during his plea colloquy the truth of the statement read to the judge by the assistant district attorney that:
“When the officers went to place the defendant [Isaac] under arrest, he did violently thrash around and did resist arrest, and during the course of that arrest, he did commit an assault and battery on Officer Morrell.”
To Amica, for Isaac to show that coverage applied under the policy, he (or Officer Morrell in his stead) had to prove that he did not intend the “type of harm inflicted,” namely bodily injury, or know to a substantial certainty that such harm would occur, regardless of intent as to the extent of harm inflicted.
Amica argued that in resisting arrest and thereby causing Officer Morrells’ injuries could not be an accident as such injuries were an expected and intended consequence of Isaac’s actions. The testimony in the case was that Isaac violently charged at and pushed Officer Morrell and continued to violently resist all four police officers in an attempt to avoid arrest.
In his deposition, Officer Morrell testified that Isaac had charged out of the bedroom and down the very narrow hallway and trying to remove Officer Morrell and the other obstacles in the hall to exit the house and escape from the police.
Another officer testified that he saw Isaac Rivera smash into Officer Morrell “with the force of…a [football] running back, slamming into him.”
The testimony of all of the individuals present at the time of Isaac’s arrest, Amica argued, made it clear that Isaac charged directly at and into Officer Morrell and struggled against him and the other officers down a very narrow hallway. To Amica, “this conduct was so substantially certain to cause injury to Officer Morrell as to be deemed intentional as a matter of law.”
Finally, Amica noted that although Isaac testified at his deposition that he did not intend to cause an injury to Officer Morrell or any of the police officers, “this was a self-serving statement made nearly two years after the incident and over a year after his guilty plea.” Thus, Amica argued Isaac’s belated statement of having no intention to injure anyone did not negate the inference of intent as a matter of law.
The Court analyzes policy terms “accidental” and “expected and intended” in relation to Isaac’s actions
Officer Morrell opposed Amica’s summary judgment motion claiming there were material questions of fact whether Isaac had specifically intended to injure Officer Morrell.
In the first instance, the Court analyzed whether, as Amica argued, Officer Morrell’s injuries were not received in an “occurrence” as defined in Amica’s policy.
The Court noted both parties relied on Massachusetts law construing the word “accident” to interpret the term “occurrence” in the policy. Under Massachusetts law, the word “accident,” in the context of insurance liability, means an “unexpected happening without intention or design.”[pullquote]Because Officer Morrell’s Superior Court lawsuit alleged negligence, which falls under the umbrella of injuries caused by “accident,” the Court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Officer Morrell’s injuries were caused by an ‘occurrence’ under Amica’s policy.[/pullquote]
Because Officer Morrell’s Superior Court lawsuit alleged negligence, which falls under the umbrella of injuries caused by “accident,” the Court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Officer Morrell’s injuries were caused by an ‘occurrence’ under Amica’s policy.
On Amica’s argument that Isaac’s action caused injuries to Officer Morrell that were expected or intended by Isaac, and therefore excluded from policy coverage, the Court noted that Massachusetts law had “two strands” of cases.
The first strand was those cases “where. .. an intent to cause injury exist[s] as a matter of law due to the nature of the act” such as rape, forceful sexual molestation, or pushing a person down the stairs, for example.
The second strand was those cases in which no inference as to the insured’s intent could be made as a matter of law, and the question of the insured’s intent had to be decided by a jury or other factfinder.
The Court noted Amica’s argument that Isaac’s conduct fell within the first strand of cases where the law would infer an intent to injure, and Officer Morrell’s argument Isaac’s conduct fell within the second strand, and thus his actual intent was for a jury to decide.
Court denies Amica summary judgment finding questions of fact for a jury to decide
After reviewing that admissible evidence presented in Amica’s motion for summary judgment and Officer Morrell’s opposition, the Court concluded that the facts in this suit were more similar to cases where a jury had to decide the insured’s intent.
In particular, the Judge found the similarities between Isaacs’ case and a case decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court were “striking.” In that case, the Supreme Judicial Court held that a criminal suspect who injured police officers in a home in the course of resisting arrest was not barred as a matter of law from obtaining defense and indemnity under a homeowner policy. The Court found that “Amica has failed to provide any persuasive reason why the Court should depart from the analysis in [that case].”
Also, the Judge found she could interpret Isaac’s actions in at least two rational ways. She could interpret the exception to the policy “as focusing on either [Isaac’s] intent to act or [Isaac’s] intent to cause harm.” However, under the general rule applicable to insurance contract provisions where two interpretations were possible, the Court noted, “the insured is entitled to the benefit of the one that is more favorable…”
Finally, the Court rejected Amica’s argument that it was entitled to summary judgment based on Isaac’s guilty plea to assault and battery on Officer Morrell, “Assault and battery…is a general intent crime. “there is no requirement that the Commonwealth must prove the defendant had a specific intent to injure the victim.” For insurance coverage purposes, the Court pointed out Massachusetts caselaw provides that in a claim for bodily injury “…the volitional act of an insured is still an ‘accident’ within the meaning of an insurance policy if the insured does not specifically intend to cause the resulting harm…”
A jury trial to be scheduled—Agency Checklists will monitor the case
Based on her analysis, the Judge denied Amica’s motion for summary judgment and ordered the parties to prepare and submit a joint pretrial memorandum with proposed deadlines for the filing of motions in limine, proposed jury instructions, proposed jury voir dire and a proposed trial date at a conference scheduled for December 17, 2018.
Agency Checklists will keep its readers posted on this case as it goes forward to a jury trial.
Update:
On December 12, 2018, a week before the scheduled trial, Amica and Officer Morrell, reported the matter settled. The day before, December 11, 2018, Officer Morrell and Mr. Rivera advised the Worcester Superior Court that they had settled their bodily injury suit. While the settlement terms were not disclosed, there is little likelihood that these cases settled without Amica having funded the bodily injury settlement.
