Introduction

Breland v. Schilling, 550 So. 2d 609 (La. 1989), addresses the intricate interplay between insurance policy exclusions and the insured's subjective intent. The case originated from a heated altercation during a softball game, where Ronald "Bug" Schilling punched William Karon Breland, resulting in severe facial injuries. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of an exclusion clause in Schilling's liability insurance policy, which purportedly barred coverage for bodily injuries “expected or intended” by the insured.

The parties involved include the plaintiffs, William Karon Breland and Deborah Adams Breland, and the defendant, Ronnie L. "Bug" Schilling. The case was escalated from the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court of Washington Parish to the Supreme Court of Louisiana on appeal.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. The jury had determined that while Schilling was at fault and negligent, he did not **intend** the bodily injury inflicted upon Breland. Consequently, the exclusion clause in the insurance policy did not apply, resulting in the plaintiffs receiving compensatory damages reduced by their respective percentages of fault.

The court meticulously analyzed the language of the exclusion clause, differentiating between the insured's subjective intent and the objective standards typically applied in tort law. The judgment emphasized that the exclusion applies only when the insured **subjectively** intended or expected the injury, not merely when the act was intentional under broader legal definitions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several key precedents to elucidate the interpretation of the exclusion clause:

• PIQUE v. SAIA, 450 So.2d 654 (La. 1984): Affirmed the ambiguity of the exclusion clause and supported its narrow interpretation against the insurer.
• Elitzky, 517 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986): Established that the exclusion is ambiguous and should be understood based on the layman's expectations.
• BARRAS v. BENOIT, 509 So.2d 668 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1987): Provided insights into how intent is construed within insurance exclusions.
• CAUDLE v. BETTS, 512 So.2d 389 (La. 1987): Differentiated between the insurance exclusion for intended injuries and broader tort-based intentional acts.

These cases collectively emphasize a trend towards interpreting insurance exclusions with a focus on the insured’s personal intent, rather than solely relying on objective standards of intent used in tort law.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning centered on distinguishing between **objective** and **subjective** standards of intent. While traditional tort law relies on whether a reasonable person would foresee the injury as a consequence of an action (objective), the insurance clause in question necessitated an analysis of the insured's personal intent or expectation (subjective).

The exclusion clause specifically mentions injuries “expected or intended from the standpoint of the Insured,” highlighting the necessity to ascertain the insured's personal perspective at the time of the incident. This approach aligns with principles that aim to prevent insurers from being held liable for deliberate misconduct aimed at the insured, ensuring that only injuries directly resulting from the insured's subjective intent or expectation are excluded.

The court further addressed potential ambiguities in the exclusion clause by adhering to contract interpretation rules, necessitating a narrow and precise understanding to favor coverage unless clear intent or expectation can be demonstrated by the insurer.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for both insurance law and tort litigation in Louisiana. By establishing that insurance exclusions for intended injuries are contingent upon the insured’s subjective intent or expectation, courts are required to delve deeper into the personal motivations and perspectives of the insured when such exclusions are invoked.

For insurers, this decision underscores the importance of clearly defining exclusion clauses and providing substantial evidence of the insured’s subjective intent or expectation when denying coverage. For policyholders, it reinforces the protection against liability claims arising from actions that were not personally intended to cause harm, even if they were negligent.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Exclusion Clause: A part of an insurance policy that specifies what is not covered. In this case, it excludes coverage for bodily injuries that the insured intended or expected to cause.

Subjective Intent: The personal desire or expectation of the insured to cause bodily injury, as opposed to what an unbiased observer would conclude.

Objective Standard: A legal benchmark that evaluates actions based on what a reasonable person would foresee or intend, rather than the individual's personal perspective.

Liability Insurance: Insurance that provides protection against claims resulting from injuries and damage to other people or property.

Tort Law: The area of law that deals with civil wrongs and damages, as opposed to criminal law.

Conclusion

The Breland v. Schilling decision marks a pivotal interpretation of insurance exclusion clauses within Louisiana law. By emphasizing the insured’s subjective intent or expectation, the Supreme Court of Louisiana has provided a clearer framework for evaluating coverage exclusions, ensuring that policies are not unduly restrictive and that coverage is afforded in cases where injuries were not personally intended by the insured.

This case underscores the necessity for both insurers and insureds to comprehend the nuanced language of insurance policies, particularly regarding exclusions based on intent. It also highlights the role of courts in balancing the protections offered by liability insurance with the need to prevent misuse of such coverage for deliberate misconduct.

Ultimately, Breland v. Schilling reaffirms the importance of fair and just interpretations of insurance contracts, aligning legal outcomes with reasonable expectations of policyholders and maintaining the integrity of liability insurance as a protective financial tool.