Interinsurance Exch. V. Flores - 45 Cal. App. 4th 661, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 18 (1996)

Rule:

Under Cal. Ins. Code § 533, an insurer bears no liability if the insured acted with intent to harm or committed an inherently wrongful act without legal justification.

Facts:

An unknown pedestrian punched Eric Michael Sanders in the face while Sanders sat in his van waiting for a traffic light to change at State Street and Figueroa in Santa Barbara. Sanders told Roger Perez of the incident. Perez suggested they return to the scene, locate the assailant and seek retribution. Perez told Sanders he was armed with a handgun before he and others got into the van. Sanders knew that someone was likely to get shot. He drove Perez and the others back to the intersection where Sanders had been punched. David Flores stood on the corner of the intersection. While Sanders drove by, Perez intentionally shot and injured Flores from the van. The van itself did not inflict any injury on Flores, nor was it used to block or pin down Flores. After his arrest for his involvement in the shooting, Sanders admitted that he knew someone was likely to be shot. Sanders also owns the van involved and his parents insured it for him under an automobile insurance policy issued by the Automobile Club. In the criminal action Sanders pled nolo contendere to the felony of aiding and abetting the shooting of Flores ( Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)). Rosemary Flores, individually, and as guardian ad litem for David Flores, filed the underlying civil suit against Sanders and others for conspiracy, battery and negligence. After trial, the trial court found that the shooting was not an accident, that Sanders acted intentionally in aiding and abetting the shooting and that the injuries inflicted on the Flores family were not covered by the instant policy. In its judgment, the trial court ruled that the Automobile Club is not obligated to indemnify Sanders for liability he may have to the Floreses. 

Issue:

Is Automobile Club liable to indemnify Sanders by virtue of his existing car insurance policy with them?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

Sanders pled nolo contendere to the felony criminal charge of aiding and abetting an assault with a deadly weapon. "The legal effect of such a [nolo] plea, . . . shall be the same as that of a plea of guilty for all purposes." ( Pen. Code, § 1016, subd. 3.) Guilty and nolo pleas are admissible in a subsequent civil action, such as the underlying action, as an admission of the crime. Therefore, Sanders admitted committing the crime of aiding and abetting an assault with a deadly weapon. The stipulated facts established that Sanders drove Perez back to the intersection where Sanders had been punched in order to retaliate. Sanders knew someone was likely to get shot. When an offense included the intent to do some act beyond the actus reus of the crime, one who aided and abetted the crime must have shared the specific intent of its perpetrator. Although the stipulated facts did not state the crime for which Perez was charged and convicted, they did state that "Roger Perez intentionally shot David Flores with a .22 caliber revolver while Roger Perez was inside the van." By aiding and abetting the intentional shooting, Sanders was a principal to it and he was equally guilty for that act. Under these facts, Sanders harbored intent to harm within the meaning of section 533. The underlying complaint also supported the conclusion that Sanders evinced an intent to harm another. Each of its causes of action incorporated by reference the allegation that Sanders and Perez "agreed to hunt down, shoot, and either kill or maim the perpetrator of the Sanders' attack, using Roger Perez' .22 caliber handgun."