Opinion ID: 1348245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Relevant Policy Provisions

Text: The Definitions section of the Safeco policy provides: `occurrence' means an accident, including exposure to conditions which results, during the policy period, in bodily injury or property damage. The term accident is not defined in the policy. Under Section IILiability Coverages the policy provides: If a claim is made or a suit is brought against any insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies, we will: 1. pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which the insured is legally liable. Under Section IIExclusions the policy provides: Coverage EPersonal Liability ... do[es] not apply to bodily injury or property damage: a. which is expected or intended by any insured. Under Section IIConditions the policy provides: Severability of Insurance. This insurance applies separately to each insured. This condition shall not increase our limit of liability for any one occurrence. The term occurrence defines coverage under the policy. The burden is on the insured to demonstrate that the loss falls within the scope of the policy. Harris v. Richards, 254 Kan. 549, 553, 867 P.2d 325 (1994). Safeco argues that the definition of the term accident quoted in Harris, 254 Kan. at 553, and taken from an early case, should apply: The word accident does not have a settled legal signification. It does have, however, a generally accepted meaning, which is the same whether considered according to the popular understanding or the approved usage of language. An accident is simply an undesigned, sudden, and unexpected event, usually of an afflictive or unfortunate character, and often accompanied by a manifestation of force. (Quoting Gilliland v. Cement Co., 104 Kan. 771, 773,180 Pac. 793 [1919].) In Harris, this court affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, finding that Harris' injury was not a covered occurrence and the intentional act exclusion applied to bar coverage. Harris was injured by a shotgun blast fired by the insured, Douglas Hawley, into the back window of a pickup truck as Harris sat in the truck with the insured's ex-wife. The insured killed himself and his ex-wife in the encounter. As in this case, the liability policy covered injuries resulting from an occurrence, defined as an accident. The policy also contained an exclusion for injury expected or intended by an insured. 254 Kan. at 554. Harris argued that his injury was an accident because the insured intended to kill his ex-wife when he fired into the back window of the truck. This court stated: We believe that the question of coverage relates to Douglas as the insured rather than to Harris, the victim. We agree with the learned trial judge's observations: `It would seem to me that where one fires a shotgun twice through the back of a pickup truck, knowing that some person is in the truck, but not being able to see who it is because of darkness, the injury caused to a person in the truck though claimed to be unintended, is not an accident.' 254 Kan. at 554. Harris also argued that the intentional injury exclusion should not apply because his injuries were not the natural and probable consequences of the insured's intended acts. This court disagreed. Harris is distinguishable, because only the insured who caused the injury was involved in that case, and no severability clause was at issue. The court did not need to decide from whose standpoint the injuring event should be viewed in determining whether the injury resulted from an accident. The Brumleys contend that the severability clause in the policy makes the term occurrence ambiguous, in that the policy does not provide from whose perspective the injuring event is to be judged. Safeco responds that the severability clause does not apply to the occurrence definition or make it ambiguous because the occurrence definition is a coverage provision, not an exclusion. The parties agree that both David and Kimberlee are insureds under the policy. The parties also agree that Kimberlee's fatal blow to Douglas' abdominal area, tearing the mesentery and resulting in peritonitis and death, was intentional.