Sonnenschein Amicus Brief Contributes to Victory for Insurance Client
Sonnenschein recently helped secure an important victory for its insurance clients before the California Supreme Court, while successfully arguing that a prior decision by that court was inapposite. In Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California, the court held that the policyholder’s conduct in physically assaulting and battering another person could not be deemed an “accident” – and hence failed to trigger a duty to defend – regardless of whether the policyholder believed his actions were necessary to defend himself.
On behalf of the Association of California Insurance Companies (ACIC), Sonnenschein had filed an amicus curiae brief urging this result, based on a long line of California appellate cases (many of which were briefed and argued by Sonnenschein) holding that no “accident” can exist when the policyholder’s conduct was purposeful and deliberate, irrespective of the policyholder’s subjective intent or state of mind. Additionally, Sonnenschein argued that the California Supreme Court’s prior decision in Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co. was inapposite, because it was decided based on the exclusionary language in the outdated policy at issue in Gray, not on the “accident” requirement found in the coverage clause of most modern liability policies.
Counsel for the Interinsurance Exchange had avoided taking this position in the belief “that it was asking too much of the Court to seek to construe Gray.” As a major part of its rationale, the Delgado court adopted Sonnenschein’s argument regarding the limited applicability of Gray, even though the Interinsurance Exchange had declined to advance this argument in its briefs.
