Court Opinion

ID: 9579470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:55:32.448778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:32.683337
License: Public Domain

Judge BECTON
concurring.
I am not convinced that Tommy Wilmoth’s guilty plea to the second degree murder of Kay Pugh is conclusive evidence of his intent to inflict bodily injury on Kay Pugh so as to exclude coverage under plaintiff’s homeowner’s policy No. CZS-295175. Although it is true that a guilty plea in a criminal action may properly be admitted into evidence in a related civil proceeding as an admission against interest, such a plea is not, in my view, determinative of the ultimate factual question in a civil suit. Experienced members of both the bench and bar are aware that pleas are entered for many different reasons. The most common is the most pragmatic: the sobering realization that in many criminal cases a plea of not guilty is a game of chance. The defendant has no control over the dice, and the stakes comprise his freedom.
However, as the majority points out (ante p. 5), that one or both occupants of the car would be severely wounded or killed when Wilmoth wildly and repeatedly fired his .38 into the car should have been expected. Since the policy exempts from coverage expected injuries, Commercial Union was within its rights to deny coverage to Wilmoth.
Accordingly, although the more appropriate ratio decidendi is, in my view, the “expected” consequence policy exclusion, I nevertheless concur in the result reached by the majority.