State Farm Ruling Clarifies Difference Between Intentional Conduct and Accidental Occurrence

The California Court of Appeals’ decision in State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Diblin examines the boundary between intentional conduct and accidental occurrences in a homeowners policy. A violent assault gave rise to both intentional tort and negligence claims.

Michele L. Levinson of Frost Brown Todd writes that the ruling provides an overview of how courts distinguish between accidents and deliberate acts when evaluating coverage. Policy language defining “occurrence” was central to the inquiry.

The dispute arose after Curtis Diblin brutally attacked his housemate, Monee Gagliardo, with a rubber mallet, causing severe injuries. Gagliardo sued on multiple theories: negligence, gender violence, civil rights violations, and sexual assault. Each was based on the beating.

State Farm defended Diblin under a reservation of rights and later sought declaratory relief, asserting that the incident was not an “occurrence” under the policy because Diblin acted intentionally. The trial court agreed, finding no covered accident, and further concluding that the policy’s intentional-act exclusion and Insurance Code Section 533 (which prohibits insurers from covering losses caused by the willful act of an insured, but not negligence) would bar indemnity even if coverage existed.

On appeal, Diblin and Gagliardo argued that the jury’s negligence verdict required a finding of coverage. The appellate court disagreed, determining that the jury’s findings, particularly malice and oppression, established deliberate and intentional conduct, not an accident.

The court also rejected reliance on the concurrent independent cause doctrine, explaining that the asserted negligent acts were not independent of the intentional assault. Because the injuries did not arise from an accident, the court found no “occurrence” and declined to reach the policy exclusion. The lower court’s rulings were affirmed, with costs awarded to State Farm.

For lawyers advising insured parties, the ruling illustrates the importance of examining the factual basis of a jury’s findings to determine whether any theory of liability can constitute an accident. It also shows that when intentional conduct forms the core of the injury-producing events, reframing aspects of that conduct as negligence may not bring the claim within coverage.