Underlying Complaint’s Allegations Confirm Insurer Has No Duty to Defend

The court granted the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment confirming that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured. Arch Spec. Ins. Co. v. Herbal Garden Wellness, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195542 (D. Colo. July 15, 2026).

Herbal Garden was an additional insured under a CGL policy issued by Arch Specialty Insurance Company to Healthcare Professionals Purchasing Group, LLC. The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury “expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.”

Patty Daulton filed a complaint seeking damages from Herbal Gardens because of a tragic shooting that injured her and killed her husband and two other people. The underlying complaint alleged that Hanme Clark, who was living on Herbal Gardens’ property, shot and killed those involved due to an ongoing property dispute.

Daulton asserted premises liability and negligence claims against Herbal Gardens in the underlying complaint. She alleged that Nancy Rae Kochis-Medina, who was also living on Herbal Gardens’ property, and potentially Clark, were agents of Herbal Gardens, and lived on the property with the knowledge and consent of Herbal Gardens. Herbal Gardens and its agent, Kochis-Medina, knew of, advertised, and encouraged Clark’s violent behavior. As a result, the underlying complaint alleged that Clark’s actions were foreseeable to Herbal Gardens.

Based on these allegations, Arch concluded that the expected and intended exclusion barred coverage. Arch filed suit against Herbal Gardens seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. Because the underlying complaint alleged that Herbal Gardens knew of Clark’s violent history, and it permitted him to take violent actions on its behalf, the injures to Daulton and her husband were expected or intended. The underlying complaint was replete with allegations that Herbal Gardens (and its agent) knew of Clark’s violent tendencies and encouraged his behavior in defending Herbal Gardens’ property rights.

Because the expected or intended injury exclusion applied, the court found as a matter of law that Arch did not have a duty to defend Herbal Gardens in the underlying lawsuit. Arch’s motion for partial summary judgment was granted.