A gunshot killed one and injured others. Rejecting arguments for a multiple occurrence, the Alaska determined there was one occurrence despite several injuries. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n v. Neary, 2013 Alas. LEXIS 102 (Alaksa Aug. 16, 2013).
The insured's teenage son fatally one friend and seriously injured another with one of his father's guns. The victims' parents separately sued the insureds, their son and their insurer, United Services Automobile Association, for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. USAA moved for summary judgment, arguing it could be liable for no more than $300,000, the single per-occurrence policy limit. The insureds argued there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the number of occurrences. The trial court held that (1) each of the three insureds was entitled to a separate coverage limit of $300,000 per occurrence, and (2) there was one occurrence, meaning that the available limits under the policy was $900,000.
USAA appealed the first ruling, arguing that the policy's per-occurrence limit of $300,000 did not vary depending on the number of insureds. The insureds appealedthe second ruling, arguing that the facts gave rise to multiple occurrences, the injury of the two shooting victims and the emotional distress suffered by the victims' four parents.
The Alaska Supreme Court reversed both rulings. Regarding the first ruling, nothing in the declaration page suggested that the policy limits of $300,000 would be increased depending on the number of insureds. The single per-occurrence limit applied regardless of the number of insureds.
Secondly, the Supreme Court determined there was a single occurrence. The insureds argued that each act of negligence that enabled their son to shoot his friends should be counted as a separate occurrence: (1) his own negligent handling of the gun, and (2) each negligent act of his parents in failing to secure their forearms and supervise their son's activities. The court noted, however, that it was the unforeseen event, not every act of negligence preceding it, that constituted the accident or occurrence for purposes of insurance coverage.
Accordingly, the trial court's summary judgment order was reversed.
The author of this opinion is my old colleague from Alaska and running partner, Justice Peter Maassen. It is heartening to see Justice Maassen calming the insurance coverage waters in Alaska during his first year on the bench.
