Sutton v. Interinsurance Exchange
The question on this appeal is whether an intentional act by an insured, taken in self-defense, may qualify as an accident for purposes of an insurance policy written to provide defense and indemnification for the insured. The answer is yes; the trial court erred in ruling that it cannot. Consequently, the ensuing judgment for the insurer, based on its successful motion for summary judgment, must be reversed.
The appellant in this case, Vincent Sutton (Sutton), was insured under a homeowners policy issued by respondent Insurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California (Auto Club). The appeal arises from Auto Clubs successful motion for summary judgment against Sutton in his suit for breach of the insurance contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Comments on Sutton v. Interinsurance Exchange