Steven Berns v. Sentry Select Ins. Co.

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Steven Berns appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Sentry Select Insurance Company. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In order to prevail on appeal, Sentry must show that Exclusion 1 unambiguously precludes coverage. See MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exch., 31 Cal.4th 635 , 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 , 73 P.3d 1205, 1213 (2003). Ambiguities in the language of the exclusion must be construed in favor of the insured (Berns). See Producers Dairy Delivery Co. v. Sentry Ins. Co., 41 Cal.3d 903 , 226 Cal.Rptr. 558 , 718 P.2d 920, 924 (1986). In light of the language of Exclusion 1 and of California precedent interpreting the term “intentional,” Sentry’s position that the term “intentional” unambiguously means “voluntary and deliberate” is untenable.

The exclusion at issue in this case precludes coverage for “[a]ny dishonest, malicious, fraudulent, criminal or intentional ‘act.’” Sentry’s contention that the term “intentional” broadly applies to any “voluntary” or “deliberate” act conflicts with the interpretive principle of ejusdem generis. “Under the rule of ejusdem generis, where general words follow an enumeration of specific items, the…