A famous case decided by the Iowa Supreme Court in 1971 illustrates that an individual is not privileged to use force in defending property in excess of that reasonably believed to be necessary and cannot use such force as is likely to lead to great bodily injury or death. However, an individual can exert force that is likely to take a life if the person has a reasonable belief that their own life may be taken if they don’t act. But, what about insurance coverage in such a situation? That was the issue in this case.
A woman was at home with her three small children when she was attacked by two intruders. After being choked and knocked down, she managed to get to her bedroom where a gun safe was located. While again being assaulted, she managed to get the safe open, grab a gun and shoot at the intruder. The other intruder fled from the home. After determining that her children were unharmed, the woman noticed that the remaining intruder (now wounded) continued to move in her direction. She told the intruder not to move, and fired a warning shot when the intruder didn’t stop. When the intruder still did not stop, the woman shot several more times at the intruder, killing him.
The estate of the intruder sued the woman for wrongful death, and she replied that she had acted in self-defense (she has not been criminally charged in the matter) and claimed that her conduct was covered by various insurance policies that she owned. As such, she claimed that the insurance companies were required to defend her against the wrongful death action. The insurance companies claimed that they had no duty to defend because the insured acted intentionally and that intentional acts of the insured were not covered by the policies. The trial court agreed, and the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed.
While the woman claimed that one of her policies contained an exception to the exclusion of coverage for intentional bodily injury when reasonable force is exerted in self-defense, the trial court did not rule on the issue. As such, the issue was not preserved for appeal and the Court of Appeals could not rule on it. While both of her policies covered unintended accidents that resulted in bodily injury, they excluded coverage for intentional injuries caused by the insured. So the key question became whether an act of self-defense to save the insured’s life, the life of her family members and personal property of the insured was excluded from coverage as an intentional act. On that point, Iowa law is clear - and it is not favorable to insureds. In 1984, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that an action by the insured in self-defense is an intentional act. However, the court noted the trend in other states is to hold that an insured is not acting with the intent to cause injury when acting in self-defense. Two concurring justices also indicated their disdain for the current Iowa rule.
Watch this case for further proceedings. It will likely go to the Iowa Supreme Court and force that court to deal with whether the rule on self-defense being an intentional act (for insurance purposes) should be changed. Amco Insurance Co et al. v. Estate of Wehde, et al., No. 5-961/05-0503, 2006 Iowa App. LEXIS 237 (unpublished) (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2006).