In D.G. v. B.E.A., the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division addressed a demand for a homeowners’ liability insurer to provide defense and indemnification of a lawsuit raising allegations of domestic violence. The insurer denied coverage on the grounds that the lawsuit did not raise allegations of an “occurrence” as required by the policy, and also because the lawsuit fell within an exclusion for injuries “expected” or “Intended” by the policyholder. The policyholder claimed that the lawsuit should be covered because he was extremely intoxicated at the time of the incident and was unable to form an intent to cause bodily injury. In granting a motion for summary judgment brought by the liability insurer, the trial court held that the alleged conduct concerned “particularly reprehensible” acts supporting a finding of presumed intent to injure.

In reviewing this decision, the Appellate Division noted that it was a well-established principle of New Jersey law that incidents of domestic violence cannot be considered an “accident” for purposes of insurance coverage, and that such incidents are uninsurable as a matter of public policy. The Court emphasized that this result was not altered by Plaintiff’s contentions that he was intoxicated and had not previously committed domestic violence. The Court also noted that the fact that the underlying lawsuit had asserted a cause of action for negligence did not bring the matter within the scope of coverage, as the “operative facts” alleged in the complaint clearly concerned an uninsurable act of domestic violence. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in the insurer’s favor.