Video Proves Excluded Intentional Act

See the full video at https://rumble.com/v1bvh2t-video-proves-excluded-intentional-act.html and at https://youtu.be/SVAy55xlEgA

Alphonso Williams, appealed a judgment granting the motion for summary judgment of the defendant, ANPAC Louisiana Insurance Company (“ANPAC”). The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against ANPAC, finding the intentional act exclusion in the insurance policy precluded coverage for the injury caused by the insured, Christopher Hart.

In Alphonso B. Williams v. Christopher L. Hart & ABC Insurance Company, No. 54,604-CA, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit (July 6, 2022) the Court of Appeal looked to the video of a battery when Hart Punched Williams in the face without hesitation.

FACTS

On February 2, 2020, Alphonso Williams and Christopher Hart attended a Super Bowl event at a Holiday Inn hotel in Shreveport. At approximately 7:30 p.m., Hart violently punched Williams in the face, knocking him down. A surveillance camera recorded the incident.

At the time of the incident, Hart was insured by a homeowner’s policy issued by ANPAC. The insurance policy contains an exclusion of coverage for bodily injury “which is caused intentionally by . . . any insured, even if the resulting injury or damage is different than expected or intended. This exclusion shall not apply to an intentional act arising out of any insured’s use of lawful force to protect persons or property.”

ANPAC denied Williams’ insurance based on the exclusion.

Williams sued for damages against the defendants, Christopher Hart and ANPAC. After taking the depositions of Williams and Hart, ANPAC filed a motion for summary judgment alleging the insurance policy did not provide coverage because plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the intentional act of the insured.

The trial court granted ANPAC’S motion for summary judgment based on the policy language, the video and the applicable law. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of ANPAC, dismissing plaintiff’s claims against ANPAC.

DISCUSSION

Summary judgment must be granted if the motion, memorandum and supporting documents show there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules of contract interpretation.

ANPAC submitted the surveillance video to support its position that the insurance policy did not provide coverage because plaintiff’s injuries were caused by Hart’s intentional act of hitting plaintiff. The video of the incident shows Hart approach and then punch plaintiff after a brief exchange of words.

In their briefs, plaintiff and Hart do not dispute that Hart intentionally hit plaintiff, but assert their deposition testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hart acted in self-defense. Hart testified in his deposition that earlier in the evening, plaintiff had bumped into him and verbally insulted him. Hart stated that at the time of the incident, he felt afraid of plaintiff because of his earlier acts at the party and the existing antagonistic relationship between the two of them.

The Court of Appeal noted that Hart’s subjective belief that force was necessary is only one of two factors which must be proved to establish a self-defense claim. In asserting self-defense, an actor must show any force used was both reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent an offense against him.

A person making a self-defense claim is required to show not only that subjectively, the force used was apparently necessary, but also that objectively, such force was reasonable under the circumstances. A person who is the aggressor cannot claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith.

In the video, plaintiff is seen standing in the bar area prior to the incident when Hart walks directly up to plaintiff. The video shows they briefly exchanged words and Hart then punched plaintiff in the face.

ANPAC established by the video that Hart intentionally punched plaintiff after initiating the encounter which caused plaintiff’s injuries. Additionally, the video shows plaintiff did not grab or hit Hart before being punched. The Court of Appeal concluded that the video evidence supported a finding that Hart was the aggressor who cannot claim self-defense.

Hart’s use of force was unreasonable given his initiation of the physical confrontation when he could have kept his distance if actually afraid of plaintiff. Because Hart failed to show that, objectively, his use of force was reasonable under the circumstances, plaintiff has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Hart acted in self-defense.

The trial court’s judgment was affirmed. Costs of the appeal were assessed one-half to appellant, Alphonso Williams, and one-half to appellee, Christopher Hart.

Mr. Hart was unwilling to take responsibility for his wrongful acts. There was no dispute that he hit Williams in the face. The video made clear that Williams did nothing to encourage the beating. The insurance policy clearly and unambiguously excluded intentional acts. The insurer proved the punch thrown by Hart was intentional and excluded. The parties wasted their time trying to get the insurer to pay and now Mr. Hart may find he must pay from his assets whatever judgment Williams will get from the trial court for the battery.

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com.

Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.

Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.

Write to Mr. Zalma at zalma@zalma.com; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/