In Vermont Mutual Insurance Group v. LePore, 211 Ad.3d 1217, 179 NYS 3d 479 (NYAD 2022), the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court rejected the transferred intent doctrine in a homeowner policy/intentional acts case.
In the LePore case, the daughter of the named insured became involved in a physical altercation with another student while attending school. The fight was broken up and the two combatants were separated. Then, in response to a subsequent taunt, LePore ran at her and tried to punch her, but inadvertently struck an innocent third-party, Jody Cole.
Cole brought a claim against LePore. Vermont Mutual denied the claim and sought a declaratory judgment action, arguing that the Cole injury was no “accident,” but was, instead, “expected or intended.” The trial court rejected the insurer’s argument. The appellate division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court noted that while LePore intended to harm the other student, LePore did not intend to harm Cole. Because of that fact, Cole’s injuries were accidental and unexpected. The Court noted that the Doctrine of Transferred Intent was a tort concept, and not an insurance principle. While the Doctrine of Transferred Intent might create liability on LePore’s part for intentional injury, the insurer’s policy did not exclude unintentional results of intentional acts.