In Lyons v. Fire Insurance Exchange, No. B196695 (Apr. 3, 2008), a California court of appeal held that an insurer has no duty to defend where the insured’s alleged sexual advances and accompanying unwanted detention, at the heart of the underlying claim, could not be deemed an “accident” under the policy. 

This decision confirms that the term “accident” refers to the nature of the insured’s conduct, not his mistaken belief that his conduct was welcomed by the claimant.  The decision further supports the fact that the “occurrence” requirement applies equally to personal injury coverage as it does to the bodily injury and property damage coverage provisions. 

A discussion of the facts and holding follows.

Attachments:

Lyons v. Fire Insurance

[ ]

36 Kb