Title: Espinet v. Horvath

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 89-632


                                             Supreme Court
Frank Espinet
                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Chittenden Superior Court

Peter Horvath                                Special December Term, 1990




John P. Meaker, J.

Susan M. Murray of Langrock Sperry Parker & Wool, Middlebury, for plaintiff-
  appellant

Robert Andres, Burlington, for defendant-appellee

Michael J. Gannon and Richard H. Wadhams, Jr., of Pierson, Wadhams, Quinn &
  Yates, Burlington, for intervenor-appellee



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     JOHNSON, J.  Defendant challenges a trial court summary judgment
ruling that State Farm Insurance Company (State Farm) has no contractual
obligation to defend or indemnify him in connection with injuries sustained
by plaintiff whom defendant shot in the head.  On appeal, defendant contends
first that summary judgment was inappropriate because a genuine issue of
material fact exists as to whether he intended or expected to injure
plaintiff; and second that the injury was covered by his State Farm policy
because he acted in self-defense.  We reverse and remand with respect to the
first issue, but affirm with respect to the second.
     Defendant shot plaintiff after a long evening of heavy drinking.  He
alleges that during the course of an argument, plaintiff lunged towards him
with a letter opener and that he became frightened, reached for his handgun
and shot.  He claims that he did not intend to hit plaintiff but rather
aimed above his head hoping that "the big bang would straighten [the] flaky
bastard out."
     In the ensuing action by plaintiff against defendant, defendant called
upon State Farm to defend him.  Defendant's State Farm policy covers
liability for damages arising from bodily injury and requires State Farm to
provide a defense when a claim is brought for such damages.  Coverage does
not extend to a "bodily injury . . . which is expected or intended by an
insured."  The trial court ruled that, as a matter of law, defendant
expected or intended to injure plaintiff, granted summary judgment,
relieving State Farm from a duty to defend and indemnify, and entered final
judgment dismissing State Farm from the case.  This appeal followed.
           When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, we
         apply the same standard the trial court used in ruling
         on the motion.  To prevail, the moving party must
         satisfy a two-part test.  It must establish that no
         genuine issues of material fact exist, and that the
         motion rests on a valid legal theory that entitles it to
         judgment as a matter of law.  Both in the trial court
         and on appeal, the moving party bears the burden of
         proof.

Kelly v. Town of Barnard, ___ Vt. ___, ___, 583 A.2d 614, 616 (1990)
(citations omitted).  In determining whether a genuine issue of material
fact exists, a court must give the non-moving party "the benefit of all
reasonable doubts and inferences . . . ."  Price v. Leland, 149 Vt. 518,
521,