Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
August 19, 2025
Shooting Someone to Death is not an Accident

Is Injury in the Course of Self-Defense an Occurrence?
Post 5171

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gAJnVny9, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gUTs-w6E and at https://lnkd.in/gQPspzmB, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.

When There is no Accident the Intentional Acts Exclusion is Irrelevant

The case involves a tragic incident where Kimberly Mollicone was killed during a gunfight between her husband, Matthew Mollicone, and Daniele Giannone. The central issue is whether Giannone’s actions, taken in self-defense, are covered under his State Farm homeowner’s insurance policy.

In State Farm Fire And Casualty Company v. Daniele Giuseppe Giannone; Heidi C. Aull, personal representative for the estate of Kimberly Ann Mollicone, Nos. 24-1264, 24-1265, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (August 5, 2025) resolved the dispute.

THE INSURANCE COVERAGE

Although rare in insurance contracts the policy in question provides coverage for the insured’s liability to third parties who are injured in an accident, State Farm’s policy includes a self-defense exception to the intentional-acts exclusion. Sixth Circuit discussed various legal precedents and interpretations of the policy language, focusing on whether actions taken in self-defense can be considered “occurrences” under the policy.

Appellate courts have generally held that intentional actions taken in self-defense are not accidental and therefore do not constitute occurrences under the policy.

The decision explored the interplay between the personal liability coverage provision, the intended-acts exclusion, and the self-defense exception. It highlights the importance of interpreting the insurance contract as a whole to honor the intent of the parties involved.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the district court’s decision that Giannone’s actions did not qualify as an “accident,” and therefore, State Farm had no duty to indemnify or defend him in the state-court litigation.

ANALYSIS

The key issue before the Sixth Circuit whether Ms. Mollicone’s shooting constituted an “occurrence.” The policy defined an occurrence as “an accident” that results in “bodily injury” or “property damage.” Ms. Mollicone’s estate and Giannone argued that while Giannone intended to fire the gun, he did not intend to injure or aim at Ms. Mollicone, and her injuries are therefore a covered accident.

Michigan law defines an accident, for purposes of interpreting insurance contracts, as an undesigned contingency, a casualty, a happening by chance, something out of the usual course of things, unusual, fortuitous, not anticipated, and not naturally to be expected. Generally, an accident may include an unforeseen consequence of an intentional act.

But unforeseen consequences are not accidental when the intended act created a direct risk of harm from which the consequences should reasonably have been expected by the insured.

Unless the policy language specifies otherwise, Michigan uses a subjective standard, meaning the appellate court must look to whether the insured should have reasonably expected the consequences of his act. To prevail, then, Ms. Mollicone’s estate and Giannone must show that Ms. Mollicone’s death was not a foreseeable result of aiming and shooting a gun at the vehicle she occupied.

The Sixth Circuit concluded that they cannot make the needed showing.

Giannone aimed his loaded gun at Mr. Mollicone and fired, expecting a bullet to leave the chamber. The act took place as intended, even if Giannone desired a different result.

Giannone subjectively intended to cause harm, just not the harm that ultimately came about. Accordingly, Giannone’s conduct was not accidental and not a covered occurrence.

Ms. Mollicone’s estate and Giannone next argued that the analysis changes if Giannone was plausibly acting in self-defense. Along these lines, Giannone claims that he saw a gun poke out of the passenger window and, out of concern for his and his family’s safety, fired back. At the stage of the appeal the factual record is not developed enough to determine whether Giannone acted in self-defense. But the Sixth Circuit did not need to reach the question of self-defense, because such a determination would not affect State Farm’s liability.

The Sixth Circuit noted that the Michigan Supreme Court has held that actions taken in self-defense are “intentional.” [Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 565 N.W.2d 839, 842-43 (Mich. 1997).] In Harrington, an insured man intentionally shoo an intruder who he had reason to believe was armed and intended harm. The court held that the insured’s actions were not covered under his insurance policy, because actions taken in self-defense were different from “those that are purely accidental” and excluded as intentional acts. Harrington‘s reasoning implies that, under Michigan law, intentional actions taken in self-defense are not accidental. They likely thus do not constitute an “occurrence.”

Ms. Mollicone’s estate and Giannone are wrong to suggest it matters if Giannone was acting in self-defense. Even if Giannone were validly acting in self-defense such that the events fall into the exception to his intentional-acts exclusion, his actions were not accidental. So, the occurrence provision still precludes coverage.

In sum, Ms. Mollicone’s death was a direct result of Giannone’s foreseeable actions. Therefore, Ms. Mollicone’s estate and Giannone cannot show that Giannone’s actions fall under the policy’s definition of an “occurrence”without which coverage cannot exist making the intentional act exclusion surplusage.

Because Kimberly Mollicone’s death was the direct and foreseeable result of Giannone’s actions, there is no coverage under the policy.

ZALMA OPINION

Occurrence, as defined, is the key to every liability insurance contract. If there is no occurrence, no accident, there can never be coverage and there is no need to consider exclusions.

(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 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.

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
May 26, 2026
He Who Acts as His Own Lawyer Has an Idiot for a Client

Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief

Post number 5357

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.

Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed

In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.

FACTS

Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...

00:08:55
placeholder
May 11, 2026
Severe Punishment for Failure to Obey Court Orders

Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders

All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.

Post number 5348

See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.

In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...

00:08:27
placeholder
May 08, 2026
Ambiguous Contract to Repair not an Assignment

The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims

Post number 5347

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer

In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In ...

00:08:02
23 hours ago
Physician’s Malpractice Insurance not Available When License Revoked

Applicant for Insurance is Obligated to Advise Insurer in Material Changes After Application Was Signed

Post number 5371

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/physicians-malpractice-insurance-available-when-zalma-esq-cfe-fmpxc and https://zalma.com/blog.

Doctor Criminally Charged and License Suspended After Application Signed had Policy Rescinded for Failure to Advise Insurer of Change

In Xiang (Sean) Yuan, M.D. v. Positive Physicians Insurance Company, No. 1821 EDA 2025, No. J-A08033-26, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (May 29, 2026) Dr. Xiang (Sean) Yuan, a physician, sought renewal of his professional liability insurance policy with Positive Physicians Insurance Company (PPIC) in June 2020 and again in May 2021.

In the June 2020 renewal application, he answered “no” to questions asking whether he knew of any circumstances that might lead to a professional liability claim.

Two days after signing the 2020 renewal application, Dr. Yuan was charged with 36 criminal offenses, and...

post photo preview
23 hours ago
You Lose When You Sit on Your Rights

Claim and Suit Time Barred by Private Limitation of Action

Post number 5370

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-lose-when-sit-your-rights-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-vfxsc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.

Suit Fails Because the Plaintiffs Ignored the Policy’s Private Limitation of Action

In Shree Ugtai Express, Inc. d/b/a Hollday Express Shop v. West Bend Insurance Company, No. 1:26-cv-01050-STA-jay, United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division (June 9, 2026) Shree Ugtai Express, Inc., doing business as Holladay Express Shop, sued West Bend Insurance Company for wrongful denial of insurance benefits after property damage allegedly caused by a burst water heater pipe on December 25, 2022.

The insurance policy required any suit to be brought within two years of the date of direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff filed its complaint in Tennessee state court on December 17, 2024, which was within that two-year period.

FACTS

However, although a summons ...

post photo preview
June 11, 2026
You Lose When You Sit on Your Rights

Claim and Suit Time Barred by Private Limitation of Action

Post number 5370

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-lose-when-sit-your-rights-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-vfxsc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.

Suit Fails Because the Plaintiffs Ignored the Policy’s Private Limitation of Action

In Shree Ugtai Express, Inc. d/b/a Hollday Express Shop v. West Bend Insurance Company, No. 1:26-cv-01050-STA-jay, United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division (June 9, 2026) Shree Ugtai Express, Inc., doing business as Holladay Express Shop, sued West Bend Insurance Company for wrongful denial of insurance benefits after property damage allegedly caused by a burst water heater pipe on December 25, 2022.

The insurance policy required any suit to be brought within two years of the date of direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff filed its complaint in Tennessee state court on December 17, 2024, which was within that two-year period.

FACTS

However, although a summons ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals