Erie Insurance Exchange v. Fidler

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an insured expected or intended to cause bodily harm when he threw someone against a wall although the underlying complaint did not “expressly state” that he “expected or intended” to cause the resulting injury
• no coverage where insured threw plaintiff against a wall and into a desk, and the policy specifically excluded coverage for bodily injury “expected or intended” by an insured
• “Simple negligence or even recklessness would not be excluded under [an intentional-acts exclusion].” (citing Elitzky, 517 A.2d at 991)
• “As long as a complaint alleges an injury which may be within the scope of the policy, the insurer must defend its insured until the claim is confined to a recovery the policy does not cover.”
• “As long as a complaint alleges an injury which may be within the scope of the policy, the insurer must defend its insured until the claim is confined to a recovery the policy does not cover.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).