Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P commenced this action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries suffered during an incident at work on September 10, 1972, when he was struck in the right eye. P was employed as a printer. At approximately 5:30 p.m., co-employees and the defendants in this action, Dale Boeschke, Bernard Halas, and Anthony Anderson, entered the room where P was working and started a 'greening pin war.' Such a war is comparable to the shooting of paper clips with rubber bands. The flying metal object that caused an injury to the cornea of P's right eye was a greening pin, similar in size and weight to a bobby pin. P's complaint also named Republic and Underwriters insurance companies (Ds). Republic (D) had in full force and effect policies of homeowners insurance covering the parents of Dale Boeschke and Anthony Anderson, with their children named as additional insureds. Underwriters (D) had issued a homeowners policy to the parents of Bernard Halas, naming him as an additional insured. Each policy contained the following exclusionary provisions: '(d) to bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits of any insured except activities therein which are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits; . . . (f) to bodily injury or property damage which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.' Ds moved for summary judgments based on policy exclusions. In the alternative, Ds requested a bifurcated trial with respect to the issue of policy coverage in the event that the motions for summary judgment were denied. The court granted Ds' requests for a separate trial on the issue of coverage. Boeschke stated that he did not mean to hit or hurt P as he was taking haphazard aim. Boeschke stated that he had no intention of hitting P in the eye, he had intended to strike P's body with the rubber band-propelled projectile. He admitted that P could be hit in the eye because of the lack of control over the flying object's course of travel. Boeschke personally realized the danger of the flying object, testifying that on one occasion he had bled after being struck with a greening pin. Halas testified that he was aiming in P's general direction but was not trying to hit any particular part of his body. Since a flying [greening pin could strike anywhere on a person's body he realized there was a possibility that the pin could hit P in the face. Ds, as well as P, stated that the 'war' game was spontaneous and not the result of any provocation or animosity. During the 3-5 minute 'game of war,' P and Ds fired approximately 30 greening pins with only one other pin striking P in the leg. P returned Ds' volleys and that Boeschke was standing about 6 feet away when he fired the pin into the plaintiff's eye. The court granted judgment in favor of Ds holding that the shooting of greening pins is an activity ordinarily associated with non-business pursuits. It held that Ds were shooting greening pins with the intent of hitting P, although they had no intent to hit P in the eye and cause the specific injury that occurred. There was a substantial certainty that P would sustain some kind of damage. The shooting of the greening pins was an intentional act of the kind and character exempted from coverage pursuant to the exclusion contained in each of the three policies. P appealed. P contends that the language of the intentional tort exclusion is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of coverage.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co