Pekin Insurance Company v. Wilson

Jack Wilson (defendant) had a commercial-general-liability policy issued by Pekin Insurance Company (plaintiff). Wilson’s policy with Pekin covered bodily injury resulting from the operation of his business, which was described as a private warehouse. The policy expressly excluded bodily injury resulting from intentional acts, but this exclusion had a self-defense exception that provided coverage for bodily injury resulting from reasonable uses of force to protect people or property. Wilson was sued by Terry Johnson for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting from two separate incidents. Wilson sought defense of Johnson’s suit from Pekin. Pekin sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend Wilson against Johnson’s lawsuit, arguing that Johnson’s claim was not covered under its policy due to the intentional-act exclusion. Johnson subsequently filed an amended complaint in the underlying suit alleging that the incidents resulted from Wilson’s negligence. In response to Johnson’s amended complaint, Pekin filed an amended complaint for a declaratory judgment that it did not owe Wilson a duty to defend Johnson’s amended suit because it merely couched Wilson’s intentional conduct in negligence terms. Wilson then filed an amended answer and counterclaim against Johnson, alleging that Wilson’s actions were in self-defense. Pekin then moved for judgment on the pleadings, ignoring Wilson’s self-defense claim. Pekin argued that judgment on the pleadings was limited to consideration of Johnson’s complaints. A state trial court granted Pekin’s motion, concluding that it was not required to consider Wilson’s self-defense counterclaim before granting judgment in favor of Pekin. An appellate court reversed, concluding that Wilson’s counterclaim was relevant to determining whether Pekin had a duty to defend and whether the claimed incidents fell within the self-defense exception.