Why a Recent Court Case Could Make It Harder for Victims to Get Paid By Insurance Money

A recent California court decision in the case State Farm v. Diblin could make it much harder for victims of violence or serious injury to get financial help—even when a jury agrees they were harmed because someone acted carelessly.

What Happened

Curtis Diblin attacked his housemate, Monee Gagliardo, with a rubber mallet, causing serious injuries. He later pleaded guilty to a crime related to the assault. Gagliardo sued him in civil court, and the jury found that Diblin was both intentionally violent and also negligent—meaning he acted carelessly in a way that contributed to the harm. The jury awarded her over $2.5 million.

Diblin had a homeowner’s insurance policy with State Farm. Normally, these policies cover accidents. But State Farm refused to pay, saying the injuries weren’t caused by an accident—they were the result of an intentional act. The court agreed, saying that because the attack was deliberate, the insurance company didn’t have to pay anything, even though the jury also found negligence.

Why This Poses A Problem For Future Victims

This decision could hurt future victims. It means that if someone is hurt by another person who acted both intentionally and carelessly, the insurance company might not have to pay—even if a jury says the careless behavior caused the injury.

Here are some examples of how this could affect people:

• Drunk driving with reckless behavior: A driver gets behind the wheel intoxicated and causes a crash that seriously injures another person. The victim sues, and the jury finds the driver both negligent for driving drunk and intentionally for speeding while under the influence. Could the insurance company refuse to pay, arguing the injuries were caused by intentional misconduct?
• A manufacturer sells a power tool knowing it has a faulty safety guard that can fail during use, but chooses not to fix it to avoid delays and costs. The company also neglects to include proper warnings. A customer is seriously injured using the tool and sues. The jury finds the manufacturer acted both negligently and intentionally. Could the insurance company deny coverage, claiming the injury was caused by intentional conduct—even though negligence was also proven?
• Construction site accident caused by contractor: A contractor knowingly removes safety barriers around a hazardous trench to speed up work and also fails to warn workers or pedestrians. A passerby falls in and is seriously injured. The jury finds the contractor acted negligently and intentionally. Could the contractor’s insurance deny coverage, arguing the dangerous condition was created on purpose?

What Needs to Change

Insurance is supposed to help people recover from unexpected harm. But this case shows that when violence or recklessness is involved, even if someone was also careless, insurance companies may use legal technicalities to avoid paying. That leaves victims uncompensated unless the defendants can personally pay the judgments.

Courts need to recognize that negligence and intentional acts can both contribute to an injury—and that insurance should still apply when a jury finds negligence. Otherwise, victims may be left with justice in name only, and no way to rebuild their lives.