Concealing a Weapon Used in a Murder is an Intentional & Criminal Act

Post 5002

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmacf4DK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gav3GAA2 and at https://lnkd.in/ggxP49GF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.

In Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Howard I. Rosenberg v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 22-3275, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 11, 2025) the Third Circuit resolved whether the insurers owed a defense for murder and acts performed to hide the fact of a murder and the murder weapon.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Adam Rosenberg and Christian Moore-Rouse befriended one another while they were students at the Community College of Allegheny County. On December 21, 2019, however, while at his parents’ house, Adam shot twenty-two-year-old Christian in the back of the head with a nine-millimeter Ruger SR9C handgun. Adam then dragged Christian’s body across the road in front of his parents’ home and left it in a wooded park.

After their adult son shot and killed his twenty-two-year-old former classmate at their house, the parents allegedly delayed discovery of the murder weapon and the victim’s body. Based on that delay, the victim’s mother sued the homeowners in state court for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The homeowners then sought legal representation under two of their insurance policies – their homeowner’s policy and their umbrella policy.

It took over two months for the police to find Christian’s body. The gun turned up a month after Christian’s killing – produced by Martha Laux. She told police that she had found a handgun along a trail while walking her dog in North Park, a large public park in Allegheny County. Over a month after receiving the handgun, homicide detectives found Christian’s body. They later learned not only that the weapon used to kill Christian was already in police custody but also that Laux was the marriage counselor for Adam’s parents, Kimberly and Howard Rosenberg.

Based on the delayed discovery of her son’s body, Christian’s mother, T. Lee Rouse, sued the Rosenberg parents in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

District Court Decision

The District Court rejected the claims by the homeowners and upheld the insurers’ denial-of-coverage decisions. The District Court’s decision in this appeal brought by the homeowners’s insurer denied coverage on several grounds, including that the claim against the homeowners did not relate to an accident. The umbrella insurer likewise denied coverage on that basis as well as several other grounds, including that an insurer’s promise to defend an insured for criminal acts is contrary to public policy and thus unenforceable under Pennsylvania law.

Was There an Accident?

The District Court examined whether the injuries alleged in the complaint resulted from an accident. Under the Rosenbergs’ homeowner’s policy, Chubb’s duty to defend depended on whether the injuries resulted from an accident. The allegations against the Rosenbergs involved intentional actions, specifically the concealment of the handgun that would have implicated their son and led to the earlier discovery of the victim’s body. The District Court concluded that the injuries did not result from an accident, and Chubb had no duty to defend under the homeowner’s policy.

Public Policy Against Insuring Criminal Acts

The court also addressed the issue of public policy. The Hudson policy included an unexpected-or-unintended injury clause, which introduced subjective considerations into the meaning of ‘occurrence’. However, the District Court held that any duty to defend would not be enforceable because Pennsylvania law forbids insuring criminal acts as contrary to public policy.
Discussion

Under the Rosenbergs’ homeowner’s policy, Chubb’s duty to defend depended on whether Rouse’s alleged injuries resulted from ‘an accident.’ Although the policy itself does not define ‘accident,’ Pennsylvania courts have defined that term as meaning the culmination of forces working without design, coordination or plan. The allegations against the Rosenbergs do not involve such chance. Rather, Rouse alleged that the Rosenbergs acted intentionally by concealing the handgun that would have implicated Adam and led to the earlier discovery of Christian’s body.

ZALMA OPINION

For liability insurance to respond to a request for defense or indemnity of a tort lawsuit the suit must allege that the actions of the defendants were neither intended nor expected by the insured, i.e., an accident. The acts of the parents, hiding the gun used in the killing and making the discovery of the body more difficult they acted intentionally to cause harm to the family of the deceased and to protect their son from responsibility for his criminal act. In addition the Third Circuit concluded that it is against the public policy of the state to allow insurance protection for criminal acts.

(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk