Abbott v. Western National Indemnity Co.

KAUFMAN, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of nonsuit in favor of respondent insurance company. The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the appellant are as follows: In 1947, appellant purchased a “Comprehensive General Automobile Liability Policy” from the respondent. The policy was endorsed to provide insurance against liability for injuries sustained by any person. The policy specifically excluded any losses “caused intentionally or at the direction of the insured.” On February 15, 1948, appellant and his brother were entertaining another gentleman and three ladies in their apartment at the Seaside Apartment, operated by the Moana Hotel in Honolulu. They had been drinking intoxicating liquor.

About 1:30 a. m. one Claude Jendruseh, the hotel detective went to the appellant’s apartment at the instance of a complaint by a hotel guest. Appellant and his brother pushed Jendruseh from the porch of the apartment, over a flight of steps and on to the cement walk below. Jendruseh was “brutally beaten with closed fists and shod feet by the defendants [Abbotts], who had no provocation and showed no mercy but continued to so beat him while he lay helpless. ...” Jendruseh was “bruised and lacerated . . . from head to foot and left. . . with several fractured bones and such severe fractures in his

[304]

right elbow that he was injured for life.” (39 Hawaii 506, 512, 513.)

The above language is from the Supreme Court of Hawaii which, in the action for assault and battery, subsequently filed by Jendruseh, reviewed the evidence and affirmed a directed verdict in favor of Jendruseh as well as an award of punitive damages. In October 1952, appellant and his brother filed this action in the Superior Court of Alameda County, demanding indemnification from the respondent for all sums expended in the satisfaction of the judgment. Appellant’s brother dismissed his action and the ease proceeded to trial on the claim of the appellant alone. The trial court ruled that the Hawaii courts had litigated and determined that the appellant had intentionally inflicted injuries upon Jendruseh; that respondent had excluded liability in such cases, and that the rule of collateral estoppel precluded further litigation of these issues. The case was therefore limited to the sole question of whether respondent was estopped from denying liability. At the close of appellant’s case, the trial court granted respondent’s motion for nonsuit. The only issue on appeal is the propriety of the trial court’s rulings on the above matters.