Supreme Court of California

In a dispute involving insurance liability coverage, court of appeals judgment is reversed where defendant had no duty to defend its insured party in the lawsuit brought against him by defendant as an insured party's unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense does not turn the resulting purposeful and intentional act of assault and battery into an "accident" within the policy's coverage clause.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/03/2009
• Published 08/03/2009

Judges

• KENNARD, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Glaser & Damone, Glaser, Damone & Schroeder and Robert P. Damone, Long Beach, for Plaintiff and Appellant., Dickstein Shapiro, Kirk A. Pasich, Cassandra S. Franklin and Stephanie A. Sullins, Los Angeles, for United Policyholders as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant., Steven W. Murray, Sherman Oaks, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant., Law Office of Daniel U. Smith, Daniel U. Smith, Kentfield;  Law Office of Gary L. Simms and Gary L. Simms, for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Reed Smith, Margaret Grignon, Judith E. Posner, Los Angeles;  Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, Timothy L. Walker, Donna Rogers Kirby, Maxine J. Lebowitz and K. Michele Williams, Long Beach, for Defendant and Respondent., Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, Paul E.B. Glad, Michael A. Barnes and David R. Simonton, San Francisco, for Association of California Insurance Companies as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent., Summers & Shives, Robert V. Closson and Ian G. Williamson, San Diego, for Employers Mutual Casualty Company as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.