Punching a Person in the Face is an Excluded Intentional Act

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gymwEPRG and at https://zalma.com/blog and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gTFqywxD and at https://lnkd.in/g_9GtYNY

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.

DISCUSSION

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.

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. 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.

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. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed.

ZALMA OPINION

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. Mr. Hart may find he must pay from his assets for the battery.

(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].

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

Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://lnkd.in/gNm9EWKJ.

Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gKCTg53