On May 23, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an unpublished decision addressing what actions by a rental home owner would be considered an “occurrence” triggering coverage and whether the actions would constitute an intentional act to exclude coverage. In State Farm Fire & Cas, Co. v. Otten, No. A15-1574, 2016 WL 2946110 (Minn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016), the court focused on whether an insurance policy covered or excluded the personal injury resulting from the rental home owners’ wrongful eviction of their tenant. The rental home was insured by State Farm’s Rental Dwelling Policy. This policy allowed coverage for personal injury resulting from an “occurrence,” which specifically included wrongful evictions, but excluded coverage for personal injury resulting from intentional acts. The Minnesota Supreme Court has interpreted the word “occurrence” as “an unexpected, unforeseen or undersigned happening or consequence.” Am. Family Ins. Co. v. Walser, 628 N.W.2d 605, 608 (Minn. 2001). Similarly, the policy’s intentional-acts provision excluded coverage when the insured expected or intended the injury. The evicted tenant, seeking to collect judgment from the insurer pursuant to an agreement with the lessor/homeowner, argued that the relevant insurance policy was ambiguous in explicitly providing coverage for the insured’s wrongful eviction while simultaneously purporting to exclude coverage for the insured’s intentional acts. Although this language seemed contradictory, the court held the two provisions could be reconciled. The court concluded that the act of wrongful eviction does not require intent; there is the possibility of mistaken wrongful eviction that would square the two phrases. However, this interpretation likely works an unexpected reduction in coverage for most lessors who thought they were obtaining coverage for wrongful eviction, but in fact are only obtaining coverage where those evictions were unintentional. This ruling may make it more difficult for lessors to settle claims with renters by assigning their insurance coverage rights. This case demonstrates that for an insured with a rental policy to overcome summary judgment based upon the intentional acts exclusion, the insured needs to offer evidence that the conduct of evicting a tenant was accidental rather than intentional, and that the harm resulting from the conduct was neither intended nor expected. Thanks to our law clerk, Molly Sigler, a student at the University of St. Thomas School of Law for her help in researching and preparing an initial draft of this blog post.
When is “Wrongful” Eviction Intentional and Therefore Not Covered?
RELATED ARTICLES
Resolving Insurance Coverage Disputes – What Every Legal Department Should Know
March 11, 2022 | Policyholder Protection, Insurance
Out of Sight, But Not Out of Mind: Facts Outside the Pleadings and the Duty to Defend
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Duty To Defend
The Pandemic vs. the Policyholder: COVID-19 and Business Interruption Coverage Claims
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Claims
Policyholders Hit With Ransomware Strike Insurance Coverage Oil in Indiana
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Cyber Insurance, Insurance
Another Favorable Ruling for California Policyholders Seeking Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
April 1, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Insurance, Policy, Claims
Resolving Insurance Coverage Disputes – What Every Legal Department Should Know
March 11, 2022 | Policyholder Protection, Insurance
Out of Sight, But Not Out of Mind: Facts Outside the Pleadings and the Duty to Defend
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Duty To Defend
The Pandemic vs. the Policyholder: COVID-19 and Business Interruption Coverage Claims
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Claims
Policyholders Hit With Ransomware Strike Insurance Coverage Oil in Indiana
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Cyber Insurance, Insurance
Another Favorable Ruling for California Policyholders Seeking Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
April 1, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Insurance, Policy, Claims
Second Court Finds COVID‐19 Business Interruption Coverage Under Tribal First Policy
March 8, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Insurance, Policy, Property Insurance
Pollution and Contamination Exclusions Don’t Warrant COVID-19 BI Claim Denials
February 22, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Claims, Policy
Tribal Property Insurance Found to Cover COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses
January 25, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Policy, Property Insurance
Case Summaries and Insights
December 9, 2020 | Policyholder Protection
The Tricky Business of Transferring Insurance Rights in Corporate Transactions
March 13, 2020 | Policyholder Protection, Policy, Insurance
Inadvertent Construction Defects Are an ‘Occurrence’ Under the CGL Insurance Policy
February 25, 2020 | Construction Law, Construction Defects, Insurance Coverage, Policyholder Protection, Commercial General Liability
After a Ransomware Attack, Does Property Insurance Cover Damaged Software and Hardware?
February 11, 2020 | Policyholder Protection, Cyber Insurance, Policy, Data Security
The Duty to Cooperate Is Not a Duty to Conform
January 31, 2020 | Policyholder Protection, Duty To Defend
Coverage May Exist For Companies Facing Allegations Related To Sexual Abuse
November 19, 2019 | Policyholder Protection, Occurrence, Policy
Does Your CGL Policy Cover Consequential Damages?
November 11, 2019 | Construction Law, Insurance Coverage
Insurance Coverage for Defendants Named in Nationwide Opioid Litigation
February 22, 2019 | Policyholder Protection, Occurrence, Commercial General Liability, do
Where There is No Meeting of the Minds About the Scope of Coverage, Must the Insurer Pay the Claim?
January 23, 2017 | Insurance, Policy, Policyholder Protection
Five Tips: Insurance Fundamentals for In-House Counsel
July 15, 2015 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Chris Yetka Publishes Article on Insurance Coverage for Punitive Damages in “The Brief”
November 7, 2014 | Claims, Policyholder Protection
Clifford Shapiro presents "The Next Wave of 'Occurrence' Disputes"
May 12, 2014 | Construction, Construction Defect, Occurrence, Policyholder Protection
NEWS ALERT: Alabama Supreme Court Withdraws and Re-Issues Decision to Find “Occurrence” for Construction Defect Claim
April 29, 2014 | Construction Defect, Occurrence, Policyholder Protection
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
Subscribe
Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.
View Subscription Center