Mutual Fire Insurance v. Hancock

I respectfully dissent. In finding that the tortious acts of Hancock “can only be intentional and the injuries resulting therefrom expected,” the Court not only fails to grant proper deference to the Superior Court in its factfinding rule, but also determines that as a matter of law the issue is precluded from litigation in the present civil action. After considering the evidence, the trial court found that:

*1314[T]he events which followed Hancock’s trip to the basement were acts committed while he was in a blackout from having consumed eight to ten drinks of equal parts of rum and coke as well as…