Bomba v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CAS.
379 N.J. Super. 589, 879 A.2d 1252 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the 'cause test' for determining insurance liability, the number of 'occurrences' is determined by the cause of the injuries, not the number of effects or injuries. A single, continuous, and uninterrupted act of negligence by an insured that leads to multiple injuries constitutes a single occurrence.
Facts:
- Edward Abrams, Jr. resided with his parents, Edward Abrams, Sr. and Joyce Abrams.
- The Abrams parents maintained firearms in their home and held a homeowners' insurance policy with State Farm Fire and Casualty Company.
- On December 21, 2000, Edward Abrams, Jr., armed with a pump-action shotgun from the home, confronted Police Chief Wesley Bomba and Lieutenant John Bouthillette.
- Abrams, Jr. fired into the police car, striking and injuring both Bomba and Bouthillette.
- He then moved to the front of the car and fired a second time, again striking both officers.
- After Bouthillette was out of the car and on the ground, Abrams, Jr. reloaded his shotgun.
- Abrams, Jr. then knelt and fired a third time, striking Bomba in the abdomen.
- Shortly thereafter, another responding officer fatally shot Abrams, Jr.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Wesley Bomba and John Bouthillette sued Edward Abrams, Sr., and Joyce Abrams (the insureds) in a New Jersey trial court, alleging negligent supervision and maintenance of firearms.
- During discovery, Plaintiffs learned of the Abrams' homeowners' policy with State Farm, which had a $100,000 per occurrence liability limit.
- State Farm was granted leave to deposit the $100,000 policy limit with the court.
- Plaintiffs then filed a separate declaratory judgment complaint against the Abrams and State Farm, seeking a ruling on the extent of the policy's coverage.
- In the declaratory judgment action, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment in the Law Division (a NJ trial court), arguing each gunshot constituted a separate occurrence.
- State Farm filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing the parents' alleged negligence was a single occurrence.
- The Law Division judge denied Plaintiffs' motion and granted State Farm's motion, ruling there was only one occurrence.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the Law Division's summary judgment order to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an insured's single act of negligent supervision that allows their son to access a firearm, which he then uses to shoot and injure two individuals in multiple separate shots, constitute a single 'occurrence' for the purposes of a homeowners' insurance policy limit?
Opinions:
Majority - Hoens, J.A.D.
Yes, the insureds' alleged negligence constitutes a single occurrence under the policy, regardless of the number of shots fired or victims injured. The court applied the 'cause test' established in Doria v. Insurance Co. of North America, which requires that the number of occurrences be determined by looking at the cause of the accident, not its effects. The underlying cause of the officers' injuries was the single, continuous act of negligence by the insured parents in permitting their son to have access to the firearms. This negligence is the sole covered event that initiated the chain of events. The court reasoned that if the son's intentional and criminal acts of shooting were considered the 'cause,' there would be no coverage at all due to the policy's exclusion for intentional acts. Therefore, the only cognizable event for coverage purposes is the parents' negligence, which constitutes one occurrence.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the application of the 'cause test' in New Jersey for determining the number of occurrences under a liability insurance policy. It establishes that courts must look to the insured's underlying act of negligence, rather than the more immediate, and potentially numerous, acts of a third party that directly inflict harm. This precedent prevents the 'stacking' of policy limits by disallowing the characterization of each individual injury or harmful action as a separate occurrence when they all stem from one proximate, uninterrupted cause attributable to the insured. The case significantly impacts litigation strategy by forcing plaintiffs to frame their claim around the single covered act of negligence, thereby limiting potential recovery to a single policy limit.
