The applicant sought a declaration that his insurer had a duty to defend him in a civil action arising from an altercation that resulted in an assault conviction and alleged personal injuries to the plaintiff.
The insurer denied coverage relying on policy exclusions for intentional or criminal acts.
The court applied duty‑to‑defend principles and held that where pleadings include a potentially independent negligence claim, an insurer must defend if there is a possibility that the claim could fall within coverage.
Because the underlying statement of claim pleaded both assault and negligence and it remained possible that liability could be established on a non‑intentional basis, the exclusion provisions could not yet be conclusively applied.
The insurer was therefore required to defend the action, except with respect to punitive or exemplary damages which were expressly excluded.
