INSURANCE-RELATED COURT CASES
Digested from case reports published online
COURT DECISIONS
Attack was intended, not negligent
Two people who were housemates ended up entangled in a criminal matter that also had insurance implications. Curtis Diblin (Diblin) and Monee Gagliardo (Gagliardo), along with several others, shared residency at a home belonging to Diblin. His residence was insured under a homeowners policy from State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (State Farm).
Occasionally, Gagliardo would make use of Diblin’s laptop. In May 2015, when Gagliardo entered Diblin’s bedroom to access his computer (to check her email messages) as well as use his coffee machine, Diblin attacked her, inflicting serious injury.
After his arrest and during his prosecution, Diblin admitted that he was guilty of assault that resulted in serious bodily injury. He pled guilty to assault as well as to intending to commit a crime of a sexual nature against Gagliardo. After the attack, Gagliardo sued Diblin and won a judgment of $2.5 million. During the lawsuit, Diblin submitted a claim to State Farm.
State Farm began defense of the lawsuit, but it was under a reservation of rights. Later, after the final judgment in Gagliardo’s lawsuit, the insurer filed a separate action. It sought a court ruling that it had no obligation to respond to the incident. The court found in favor of the insurer. That decision prompted Diblin and Gagliardo to appeal. While they initially filed separate appeals, the two appeals eventually were rolled into a single one, and a higher court made its review.
In Gagliardo’s underlying lawsuit, she accused Diblin of various acts of assault including a mallet beating to her head, dragging her from a chair, throwing her onto a floor, punching with a closed fist, groping, kissing, and being wrestled and held down on a bed. Further, she alleged that Diblin breached a duty of care. Gagliardo also sought punitive damages, asserting that the attack was done maliciously, intending harm.
In the appeal, Diblin and Gagliardo argued that the lower court and the jury were correct in finding Diblin guilty of an attack and for making the compensatory damage award. However, in an amended argument, they contended that the court made errors in certain parts of the jury instructions.
Diblin and Gagliardo also claim the lower court misinterpreted other parts of the jury’s findings in the civil lawsuit. The court, in their view, should have recognized that the jury’s failure to find that punitive damages were owed indicated that Diblin’s actions were negligent rather than intentional.
State Farm adhered to its same argument. It continued with the view that their policy’s language only provided coverage for occurrences.
The appeals court examined the lower court findings, the jury instructions, its interpretations of the jury’s findings and the relevant policy language. It found no fault in the lower court’s decision. Likewise, it ruled that the language in State Farm’s policy that defined occurrences as having to be accidental and the exclusion of intentional and malicious acts was applicable to Diblin’s actions.
The lower court decision in favor of State Farm was affirmed.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Curtis Diblin et al.—California Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, Division One—No. 37-2017-00044935—October 7, 2025.
