Court Opinion

ID: 9626260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:06:43.844222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:24.485426
License: Public Domain

OGG, Presiding Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent and find no coverage under this policy that excludes any loss that is “the result of intentional acts of an insured”.
The facts, as related by Berray in his deposition, clearly indicate that he intentionally shot Rodriquez. As Rodriquez was striking Berray with his fists, Berray dove over the front seat of his van, took his loaded Magnum pistol out of its holster, rolled back over the seat, pulled back the hammer on the pistol, aimed and fired the gun at Rodriquez. There is no claim that the shooting was not intentional by Berray because of some mental infirmity as in Globe American Casualty Co. v. Lyons, supra.
To find coverage under the facts of this case ignores the plain and unambiguous language of the policy which excludes injury intended by the insured, regardless of the motive of the insured.
Division Two of this court in Lockhart v. Allstate Ins. Co., 119 Ariz. 150, 579 P.2d 1120 (App.1978), rev. denied June 8, 1978, faced this issue in a strikingly similar fact situation involving a similar policy exclusion and determined that the carrier had no duty to defend. See Clark v. Allstate Insurance Co., supra.
I would affirm the decision of the trial court.