Beazley wants no part of defending an insured accused of domestic violence - and has three coverage defenses to back it up.
In a federal court filing on April 8, 2026, Beazley Excess and Surplus Insurance, Inc. and Beazley Underwriting Ltd. asked a judge in the Southern District of Florida to declare that they owe no defense or indemnity to David Miller. Miller is the subject of a state court lawsuit brought by Grace Park in Miami-Dade County in January 2026.
That underlying lawsuit asserts seven counts against Miller, including battery, sexual battery, attempted sexual battery, intentional and negligent animal cruelty, interference with property rights involving a cell phone, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claims arise from an alleged pattern of abusive conduct during a dating relationship between Miller and Park that lasted from approximately summer 2024 through March 2025.
According to the court filing, Miller was taken into custody in March 2025 and later pleaded guilty to first-degree misdemeanor battery and first-degree misdemeanor criminal mischief for over $200 but less than $1,000. He was ordered to one year of probation.
At the center of the dispute are two consecutive homeowners policies issued to Miller — one running from March 2024 to March 2025, subscribed to by Beazley Underwriting through Lloyd's Syndicate 3632, and the other covering March 2025 to March 2026, subscribed to by Beazley Excess and Surplus Insurance. The insurers say neither policy requires them to step in, and they are pressing that argument on three fronts.
First, they argue there was no "occurrence" to trigger coverage. The policies define that term as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions." Because the underlying claims describe Miller's alleged conduct as intentional, the insurers say it does not qualify as an accident — and without an occurrence, there is nothing to cover.
Second, they point to the Abuse, Molestation and Battery Exclusions. An endorsement on both policies excludes liability "arising out of or caused directly or indirectly by any actual or alleged sexual molestation, corporal punishment, physical or mental abuse, assault or battery."
Third, they rely on the Expected or Intended Injury Exclusion, which bars coverage for bodily injury or property damage "expected or intended by an insured," even when the resulting harm is "of a different kind, quality or degree than initially expected or intended."
Any one of those defenses, on its own, could be enough to relieve the insurers of their obligations. Together, they form a layered approach that leaves very little room for a coverage finding — particularly with a guilty plea already part of the record.
No court has ruled on the matter. The case is in its earliest stages, and neither Miller nor Park has responded.
The case is Beazley Excess and Surplus Insurance, Inc. et al. v. Miller et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-22426, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
