Meritplan Insurance Co. v. Coy Leverette, III

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Coy Leverette, III. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 13-13338

Date Filed: 01/13/2014

Page: 1 of 6

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13338
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-03858-WBH

MERITPLAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee,
versus
COY LEVERETTE, III,
Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_______________________________
(January 13, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 13-13338

Date Filed: 01/13/2014

Page: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:

Meritplan Insurance Company filed this declaratory action seeking a ruling
that Meritplan owed no duty to defend its insured, Coy Leverette, III, against a
civil suit alleging bodily injury and property damage. Leverette appeals the district
court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Meritplan. No reversible
error has been shown; we affirm.
This case arose out of a physical fight between Leverette and Bruno
Arredondo. While playing golf with a group of friends, Leverette exchanged
verbal insults with Arredondo, a member of another group of golfers. At some
point, Leverette grabbed Arredondo’s golf club; and the club broke into two
pieces. During the ensuing physical struggle, Leverette’s friend, Derrick Austin,
kicked Arredondo in the head, rendering Arredondo unconscious. Leverette then
punched Arredondo repeatedly in the face. Arredondo suffered severe and
permanent injuries as a result of the altercation.
Arredondo filed a civil suit against Leverette in state court, alleging claims
for trespass to personalty, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and punitive damages. Leverette sought to have Meritplan defend him
against Arredondo’s suit under Leverette’s homeowner’s insurance policy
(“Policy”) with Meritplan. Meritplan agreed to provide the defense under a
reservation of rights and filed this declaratory action.
2

Case: 13-13338

Date Filed: 01/13/2014

Page: 3 of 6

Arredondo then amended the underlying complaint, adding a negligence
claim against Leverette. Arredondo alleged that Leverette was negligent for
“creating a dangerous situation whereby [Arredondo] felt that he had no choice but
to physically tackle Defendant Leverette to the ground, thus resulting in the
subsequent physical assault” on Arredondo by Austin and Leverette.
The district court concluded that, because Arredondo’s injuries were not
caused by “accident,” the altercation between Leverette and Arredondo constituted
no “occurrence” under the terms of the Policy; and Arredondo’s injuries were not
covered by the Policy. As a result, the district court determined that Meritplan had
no duty to defend Leverette against Arredondo’s civil suit and was entitled to
summary judgment.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Holloman
v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832, 836 (11th Cir. 2006). “Summary judgment is
appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, presents no genuine issue of material fact and compels judgment
as a matter of law in favor of the moving party.” Id. at 836-37.
“An insurer’s duty to defend is determined by comparing the allegations of
the complaint with the provisions of the policy.” Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.
City of Rome, 601 S.E.2d 810, 812 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). Under the terms of the
Policy, Meritplan has a duty to defend Leverette “[i]f a claim is made or a suit is
3

Case: 13-13338

Date Filed: 01/13/2014

Page: 4 of 6

brought against [Leverette] for damages because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property
damage’ caused by an ‘occurrence’ to which this coverage applies . . . .” The term
“occurrence” is defined in the Policy as “an accident . . . which results . . . in: . . .
‘Bodily Injury’; or . . . ‘Property damage.’”
The term “accident” is undefined by the Policy. But, under Georgia
insurance law, the term “accident” means “an event which takes place without
one’s foresight or expectation or design.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Grayes, 454 S.E.2d
616, 618 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (citing O.C.G.A. § 1-3-3(2)). “An accident refers to
an unexpected happening rather than one occurring through intention or design.”
Id. Whether an event constitutes an “accident” is determined based on the
viewpoint of the insured. Rucker v. Columbia Nat’l Ins. Cor. Am. Home Shield
Corp., 705 S.E.2d 270, 273-74 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Leverette, demonstrates
that the events underlying Arredondo’s complaint did not take place without
Leverette’s foresight, expectation, or design. That Leverette intended to grab
Arredondo’s golf club and to strike Arredondo repeatedly in the head and face is
undisputed. Although Leverette contends that he acted in self-defense, that does
not alter our conclusion that Leverette acted intentionally. * See Grayes, 454

*

Leverette argues for the first time on appeal that, because he acted in self-defense, his conduct
falls under a “reasonable force” exception to the Policy’s standard bodily injury exclusion.
4

Case: 13-13338

Date Filed: 01/13/2014

Page: 5 of 6

S.E.2d at 618-19 (concluding that, despite the insured’s self-defense argument, no
dispute existed that the insured shot the victims intentionally when he “intended to
shoot the gun and hit those whom he intended to shoot.”).
That Leverette might not have intended the specific injuries suffered by
Arredondo is immaterial. The Policy excludes expressly from coverage losses
resulting from “bodily injury . . . which is expected or intended by [the insured]
even if the ‘bodily injury’ . . . [i]s of a different kind, quality or degree than
expected or intended . . . .” In addition -- under Georgia law -- Leverette must
show “that the loss was the unexpected result of an unforeseen or unexpected act
which was involuntarily or unintentionally done, i.e., that the injury resulted from
‘accidental means.’” See Winters v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., 433 S.E.2d 363,
363-64 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (interpreting policy language that provided coverage
for “bodily injury caused by accident”); see also Provident Life & Accident Ins.
Co. v. Hallum, 576 S.E.2d 849, 851 (Ga. 2003) (explaining that Georgia law
distinguishes between insurance coverage for “bodily injury caused by accident”
and “accidental bodily injuries”). Because Leverette acted intentionally and
voluntarily when he grabbed Arredondo’s golf club and struck Arredondo,

Because Leverette failed to raise this argument in the district court, the issue is not properly
before us. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004).
5

Case: 13-13338

Date Filed: 01/13/2014

Page: 6 of 6

Leverette cannot show that Arredondo’s injuries resulted from “accidental means”
such that they would be covered under the Policy.
The district court committed no error in determining that Meritplan owed no
duty to defend Leverette in Arredondo’s suit and that Meritplan was entitled to
summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.

6