Claims Alleging a Common Plan and Conscious Disregard of Injury that Caused an Expected Result do not Fall within Definition of “Occurrence”
In North River Ins. and U.S. Fire Ins. v. Marietta Drapery, an insured was sued in a related class action for negligent design of mini-blinds whose cord lengths allegedly caused strangulation. The plaintiffs alleged that the unreasonable dangers and defects of the mini-blinds were well known and that Marietta Drapery either knew or recklessly disregarded the potential ramifications of disclosing such defects.
Marietta Drapery obtained a commercial general liability insurance policy from an insurer, North River Ins., and various umbrella liability policies from another insurer, U.S. Fire Ins. The CGL policy covered certain occurrences which encompassed accidents, but excluded expected or intended injuries.
The insurers disputed whether they had a duty to defend policyholder, Marietta Drapery, because the injuries alleged in the class action were expected or intended injuries not covered under the policies.
The court in North River Ins. and U.S. Fire Ins. v. Marietta Drapery held that the class action claims alleged that there was a common plan and conscious disregard of an injury that caused an expected result, and thus did not fall within the definition of occurrence stated in the coverage of the policies.
The North River Ins. Co. and U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Marietta Drapery & Window Coverings Co., not reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 2959930 (S.D.Ill., 2008).
