Companion Property & Casualty Insurance v. Mathis

140 F. App'x 885

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: July 22, 2005
• Docket: 05-11679; D.C. Docket 03-00408-CV-CAR-5
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Companion”) filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that it had no obligation, under policies issued by it, to defend or indemnify Richard Douglass and Friends of Douglass Theatre Complex, Inc. on claims asserted against them by Robert Martin John Mathis and his parents. The district court found that Companion was obligated to defend and indemnify Friends of the Douglass Theatre Complex, Inc., but was not obligated to defend or indemnify Richard Douglass individually. Companion appeals, contending that the district court erred in concluding that it was obligated to defend and indemnify Friends of the Douglass Theatre Complex, Inc.

Having considered the briefs, and relevant parts of the record, we conclude that the district court erred in concluding that Companion was obligated to defend and indemnify Friends of the Douglass Theatre Complex, Inc. For the reasons set forth in SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1213-17 (11th Cir.1999), we agree with Companion that the intentional conduct alleged in the underlying action does not fall within the definition of an “occurrence” as defined in the relevant insurance policies.

The judgment of the district court declaring that Companion is not obligated to defend and indemnify Douglass on these claims is affirmed; and, the judgment of the district court declaring that Companion is obligated to defend and indemnify Friends of Douglass Theatre Complex, Inc. is reversed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.