The Utah Supreme Court Addresses "Accident" and the Reasonable Eight-Year Old Insured
On October 26, 2007, the Utah Supreme Court reversed a trial court’s determination that injuries to a seven-year old boy that suffered brain injuries when the eight-year old insured swung a hockey stick at his head was an “accident” under the subject Safeco policy of insurance finding that “accident” must be viewed from the standpoint of a reasonable eight-year old insured.
The eight-year old insured, Daniel Egan, was covered under a homeowners’ policy issued by Safeco. The policy indemnified Daniel against liability for “damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence.” The policy defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including conditions which result in: bodily injury; or property damage.” Daniel testified that he intended to hit the injured claimant, Caleb, on the shoulder pad with his hockey stick after Caleb made fun of Daniel’s “inferior” hockey skills and that he had no intention of actually hurting Caleb. The Supreme Court, in reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Safeco, found that Daniel’s age was relevant in determining if Caleb’s injury was an “accident” under Utah law as “eight-year-old children lack the experience, maturity and reasoning skills of adults.” The court found that focusing on the accidental nature of the injury and taking Daniel’s age into consideration, an average eight-year-old would not have expected to inflict substantial injury by swinging a hockey stick into the upper body of another child that was wearing hockey pads. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court finding that an issue of material fact existed as to Daniel’s actual intent to cause nontrivial injury to Caleb.
