Utah Supreme Court
Must insurers defend negligent claims when intentional torts are also alleged? Benjamin v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co. Explained
Summary
Benjamin settled sexual assault claims brought by two coworkers after Amica refused to defend one case and participate in settlement negotiations. Benjamin sued Amica for breach of contract when it refused to indemnify him for covered claims. The district court granted partial summary judgment for Benjamin, finding the policies ambiguous and requiring coverage.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Benjamin v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company, the Utah Supreme Court clarified an insurer’s duty to defend when a complaint alleges both covered and excluded claims. The decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling insurance coverage disputes involving allegations of intentional misconduct.
Background and Facts
Two coworkers sued Benjamin for sexual assault, asserting claims for intentional torts as well as negligent infliction of emotional distress. Benjamin tendered the defense to Amica under his homeowners and excess liability policies. Amica initially defended both cases but later discontinued defense in one case, claiming the allegations involved only intentional acts excluded from coverage. After Benjamin settled both cases without Amica’s participation, he sued for breach of contract when Amica refused indemnification.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether Amica had a duty to defend claims alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress when the complaints also alleged intentional sexual assault. The central question was whether the “expected or intended injury” exclusion in the homeowners policy precluded coverage for negligence claims arising from the same factual allegations that supported intentional tort claims.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court held that insurers must defend negligence claims even when plaintiffs also allege excluded intentional torts. The court emphasized that alternative pleading is permissible and that the crux of negligent infliction of emotional distress is unintentional injury. Significantly, a jury had rejected the intentional tort claims and found Benjamin liable only for negligent infliction of emotional distress, demonstrating the viability of the negligence theory. The court also found the excess policy provided coverage for invasion of privacy and false imprisonment claims under its personal injury provisions.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that insurers cannot avoid their duty to defend simply because a complaint includes allegations that could support excluded intentional tort claims. When complaints allege alternative theories including covered negligence claims, insurers must defend until those claims are dismissed or resolved against coverage. The decision also demonstrates the importance of carefully analyzing excess policy language, which may provide broader coverage than primary policies for certain intentional torts.
Case Details
Case Name
Benjamin v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co.
Citation
2006 UT 37
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20040974
Date Decided
July 7, 2006
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Insurance policies unambiguously required coverage for negligent infliction of emotional distress claims under a homeowners policy and invasion of privacy and false imprisonment claims under an excess policy, despite allegations of intentional sexual assault.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment determinations, granting no deference to the district court
Practice Tip
When analyzing duty to defend, examine whether complaints allege alternative theories of liability including negligence claims that fall within policy coverage, even if intentional tort claims would be excluded.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.