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.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...