Estate of Lehmann by Lehmann v. Metzger
Cited by
- Renee Dianne Florek, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- B.M.B. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 664 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2003
- Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Todd 547 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1996
- Rw v. Tf 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
- R.W. v. T.F. 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
- Rw v. Tf 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
- R.W. v. T.F. 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
- SARA L. v. Broden 507 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- D.W.H. Ex Rel. Mitchell v. Steele 494 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- Houg v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 481 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- North Star Mutual Insurance Co. v. R.W. 431 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Judith G. 379 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Independent School District No. 656 355 N.W.2d 413
- 355 N.W.2d 406 not in our corpus
- Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Hill 314 N.W.2d 834
Opinion text
KELLEY, Justice. Respondents The Estate of Gloria J. Leh-mann, by Walter A. Lehmann, as Personal Representative, and Walter A. Lehmann and Agnes Lehmann commenced an action against respondent Robert W. Metzger, the uncle of the minor daughter of Walter A. and Agnes Lehmann, alleging that he had repeatedly sexually assaulted the girl when she was between the ages of 12 and 16 years. Respondent Metzger tendered the defense of that action to his homeowner’s insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Auto-Owners). Auto-Owners refused to defend, claiming there was no coverage under the “intentional act” exclusion. 1 After respondent Metzger had im-pleaded Auto-Owners as a third-party defendant, the trial court severed the coverage issue for trial before trial of the main action. After the jury found that respondent Metzger, by his sexual assaults, did not intend to inflict bodily injury on the victim, the trial court entered judgment that the series of sexual assaults was covered by the policy. We reverse. In construing the “intentional act” exclusion of liability insurance policies where the underlying claim is that the insured intentionally sexually assaulted the victim, an intention to inflict injury will be inferred as a matter of law. Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Independent School District No. 656, 355 N.W.2d 413 (Minn.1984), filed herewith; State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Williams, 355 N.W.2d 406 (Minn.1984); Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Hill, 314 N.W.2d 834 (Minn.1982). Reversed and remanded for vacation of judgment in favor of respondent and entry of judgment for appellant. 1 . The policy contained the standard exclusion: "This policy does not apply * * * to bodily injury or property damage which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the Insured.”