Before Brown, C.J., Neubauer, P.J., and Reilly, J.
Pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.61 (2007-08) this court certifies the appeal in this case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for its review and determination.
ISSUE
Does the four-corners rule govern an insurer’s duty to defend when, in response to a lawsuit, an insured alleges that he acted in self-defense and the insured’s policy expressly provides coverage for injuries sustained by acts of self-defense?
BACKGROUND
In 2007, this court issued Estate of Sustache v. American
Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2007 WI App 144, ¶¶8-19, 303
The decision
was appealed, and the supreme court in Estate of Sustache v. American Family Mutual
Insurance Co., 2008 WI 87, ¶24, 311
THE INSTANT CASE
Jeffrey M. Wilkinson filed a civil complaint against James R. Arbuckle
alleging that on May 6, 2008, Wilkinson was injured when Arbuckle willfully and
maliciously assaulted and battered him.
Arbuckle answered by denying that he was the aggressor and alleging that
he was protecting his father from an attack by Wilkinson. Arbuckle stated that he was only using “such
force as was necessary to protect his father, restrain Wilkinson, and protect
himself from Wilkinson.” Arbuckle counterclaimed against Wilkinson
for intentional battery.[5]
Arbuckle
contends that his homeowner’s policy with Acuity grants coverage when an
insured causes bodily injury when acting in self-defense. The Acuity policy provides that if a claim is
made or a suit is brought against Arbuckle for damages caused by an “occurrence,”
Acuity will provide a defense even if the suit is groundless, false, or
fraudulent. “Occurrence” is defined as
an “accident.” The “exclusions” section
of the policy states that while intentionally harmful acts committed by the
insured are not covered, acts “committed to protect persons or
property” are covered.[6]
Acuity filed a motion for summary
and/or declaratory judgment arguing that because Wilkinson’s complaint alleged that Arbuckle “willfully and
maliciously” attacked him, Arbuckle’s conduct was not an occurrence and therefore
not an accident. Thus, Acuity argued
that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Arbuckle. The circuit
court concurred in a detailed and thorough decision. The court concluded that Sustache I stands for the
proposition that there are no exceptions to the four-corners rule in
DISCUSSION
Black-letter
law provides that an insurance policy is to be construed so as to give effect
to parties’ intentions. Plastics
Eng’g Co. v.
In
determining whether there is a duty to defend, the court first considers
whether the insuring agreement makes an initial grant of coverage.
Here, the
Acuity policy clearly and unambiguously provides coverage for
self-defense. However, the coverage for
self-defense is listed as an exception to the agreement’s general policy of
excluding coverage for injuries stemming from intentional acts committed by the
insured. Under the four-corners
analysis, a complaint alleging battery will not trigger a defense under the
policy’s self-defense coverage because battery allegations preclude the initial
grant of coverage under the policy’s definition of an “occurrence” as an
“accident.” Therefore, Acuity’s
obligation to defend under the self-defense clause will rarely, if ever, be triggered
given that self-defense is an affirmative defense.
In sum, although Arbuckle claims that the alleged injury was caused
when he was acting in self-defense, the four-corners rule serves to deny him the
defense that he and Acuity agreed upon. In
this limited circumstance, the four-corners rule—a rule of construction
developed by the courts to give effect to the parties’ contractual intentions—is
in direct conflict with the clear and unambiguous language of the policy and
the parties’ intentions.
CONCLUSION
The supreme court is the primary law-making court of this
state and is the only court with authority to overrule, modify, or withdraw
language from a prior appellate case. Cook
v. Cook, 208
[1] We
will refer to this court’s decision in Estate of Sustache v. American Family Mutual
Insurance Co., 2007 WI App 144, 303
[2] Compare Prof’l
Office Bldgs, Inc. v. Royal Indem. Co., 145
[3] Grieb
v.
Citizens Cas. Co., 33
[4] See Smith
v. Katz, 226
[5] This raises the interesting possibility that perhaps neither Wilkinson nor Arbuckle’s insurers have a duty to defend under the four-corners rule.
[6] The clause provides:
EXCLUSIONS—SECTION
II
1.
This
insurance does not apply, under Parts D, E, F and G to:
. . .
.
d. Bodily injury or property damage arising out of an intentionally harmful act or omission committed by, or at the direction of, the insured. This exclusion applies if the injury or damage is substantially certain to follow from the intentionally harmful act or omission even if the actual injury or damage is different from that which was expected or intended.
This exclusion
does not apply to bodily injury or property damage resulting from an act
committed to protect persons or property.
[Emphasis added.]