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
August 27, 2026
Offer Made and Accepted Creates Enforceable Contract

Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim

Post 5434

Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute

In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange,  The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.

Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...

00:08:28
August 26, 2026
Offer Made and Accepted Creates Enforceable Contract

Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim

Post 5434

Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute

In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange,  The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.

Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...

00:08:28
July 22, 2026
The Real Cost of Fraud

The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407

Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.

After ...

00:12:33
September 11, 2026
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim

Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged

Post 5488

Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma

ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html

In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.

South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...

post photo preview
September 11, 2026

Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim

Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged

Post 5488

ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html

In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.

South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.

After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.

LAW

Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...

September 10, 2026
Failure to Plead a Facially Plausible Claim Requires Dismissal

Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith

Post 5487

Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.

Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...

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