Kentucky Court of Appeals - Unpublished
Insurance - Intentional Act Exclusion
Owners Insurance Co. v. Utley, 2010 WL 2428730 (Ky.App. June 18, 2010), ordered depublished December 8, 2010 (2010-SC-474-D)

This case concerns coverage under a homeowners’ policy for liability arising from a bar fight. The insured was attacked by an assailant and injured him in what was described as self defense. The insured apparently used a knife which caused non-life threatening injuries. The only issue addressed by the Court was whether the insured had the requisite intent to invoke an exclusion for intentional acts. The opinion does not address at all the issue of whether there was an occurrence in the first place.

The trial Court had held that the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from the evidence was that the insured never intended to cause injury but rather sought to defend himself. The insurer argued that the trial Court should have applied the doctrine of inferred intent. By this, the opinion apparently refers to cases where intent can be inferred from the nature of the act, citing as an example child molestation. Essentially, the Court determined that in the context of self defense it could not be said that the conduct itself would support an inference of intent. Accordingly, the policy was determined to provide coverage. The opinion provides no explanation for how the assailant could seriously bring an action against his victim, but of course coverage may apply even though the claim is groundless.

Kentucky Court of Appeals
Employment - Title VII - Retaliation
Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 567 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. June 5, 2009)

Thompson was engaged to a co-worker who filed a charge based on sex discrimination with the EEOC. About three weeks later, Thompson was discharged. Thompson admitted that he had taken no action and had given his fiancé no assistance with respect to the charge. Sitting en banc, the Sixth Circuit held that a third party who has not personally engaged in protected activity cannot bring a claim for retaliation. The bare majority opinion, reflecting the view of 9 out of 17 Judges, relied on what it considered to be the plain wording of 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e-3(a). It remains to be seen how this opinion will be extended in a case where an employee testifies that he gave passive or moral support to the co-worker who made the charge without taking any public or formal action.