(Article from Insurance Law Alert, January 2026)
For more information, please visit the Insurance Law Alert Resource Center.
Holding
A homeowner’s insurer owes no duty to defend or indemnify an insured in a suit arising out of a casino assault because an intentional punch is not an “accident” or “occurrence” triggering coverage. De Chacon v. Caesars Ent. Corp., No. A-2376-23, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2584 (Super. Ct. N.J. App. Div. Dec. 16, 2025) (per curiam).
Background
This case arose from a 2018 physical assault at Bally’s Casino in Atlantic City, during which Nieves punched De Chacon. Nieves later pleaded guilty to third-degree aggravated assault. De Chacon sued Nieves civilly and sought a declaratory judgment that USAA, which issued a homeowners policy to Nieve’s parents, owed a duty to defend and indemnify Nieves.
USAA moved for summary judgment arguing that the assault was intentional and therefore fell outside the policy’s definition of “occurrence,” and was independently barred by the policy’s intentional acts exclusion. The trial court agreed. First, the court conducted a New Jersey choice-of-law analysis to decide what state’s law controlled. It held that New York law governed the interpretation of the policy because New York had the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties: the insureds resided in New York, the policy was issued in New York, and the insured property was located there.
Second, on the merits, the court concluded that the punch was intentional, and that coverage was precluded by the exclusion. The trial court rejected Nieves’s argument that the “lawful reasonable force” exception applied, noting that the criminal sentencing court found no provocation or justification for the assault.
Decision
The appellate court affirmed. Applying New York law, the court held that Nieves’s guilty plea was dispositive. Even absent the plea, the court explained, New York courts routinely deny coverage for assault claims because assaults are intentional acts by definition, and bodily injuries arising from assault are “expected or intended” and not “accidental.”
On appeal Nieves sought a ruling that New Jersey law should apply because the assault occurred in New Jersey—a distinction with potentially significant coverage consequences. Under New York law, an insured who pleads guilty to aggravated assault is collaterally estopped from asserting that the resulting bodily injury was unintended. By contrast, the court observed that New Jersey law may allow an insured to seek coverage for assault-related injuries notwithstanding a guilty plea. The court agreed with the trial court that New York law governed because New York had the most substantial relationship to the parties and the insurance contract, rendering the location of the assault insufficient to alter the choice-of-law analysis.
Comments
Although it applied New York law, the court emphasized that the outcome would be the same under New Jersey law. The record established that Nieves “expected ‘to cause some sort of injury;’” therefore, there was no “occurrence.” The court declined to reach the applicability of the “defense of others” exception but noted that the record would not support it in any event.