Section 10.8 Exclusion a—Injury Expected or Intended

• Library: Insurance Practice 2015

Whether the insured has knowledge of or willfully participates in events that precipitate a claim of property damage or bodily injury is relevant to coverage in two ways: First, as noted in §10.4 above, it can determine whether there has been an “occurrence” and, hence, whether the claim falls within the policy’s insuring agreement; second, it can implicate policy exclusions for “injury expected or intended” by the insured.

The policy’s insuring agreement limits the insurer’s indemnity obligations to “occurrences.” An “occurrence,” in turn, is defined as an “accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions” (emphasis added). Copyright, ISO Properties, Inc., 2001. Although the term “accident” is not defined under the policy, it has been judicially construed to mean acts or events not intended or expected by the insured. See Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. Wrather, 652 S.W.2d 245 (Mo. App. S.D. 1983); N.W. Elec. Power Coop., Inc. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 451 S.W.2d 356 (Mo. App. W.D. 1969); Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moll, 50 S.W.3d 329 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001).

Exclusion a of the commercial general liability (CGL) policy provides that the “insurance does not apply to . . . ‘Bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.” Copyright, ISO Properties, Inc., 2001.

The Supreme Court of Missouri, construing language similar to that found in the exclusion (albeit under a homeowner’s policy), concluded that an insured who injected a companion with cocaine may have “intended” the precipitating act of the injection but could not be said as a matter of law to have “expected or intended” the ultimate bodily injury, i.e., the companion’s subsequent overdose and death. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pacchetti, 808 S.W.2d 369 (Mo. banc 1991). Accord, Steelman v. Holford, 765 S.W.2d 372 (Mo. App. S.D. 1989) (insured who fired shot out of window of moving truck could not be said as a matter of law to have intended the ultimate injury). Economy Fire & Cas. Co. v. Haste, 824 S.W.2d 41 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991) (convicted murderer who tortured victims could not be said as a matter of law to have intended the victims’ deaths).

In a number of cases, the courts appear to be moving away from a purely subjective standard to an objective standard of the natural consequences of the insured’s act. It is not enough for the insured to state that he or she did not intend to injure the victim. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lacy, 825 S.W.2d 306 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991) (court affirmed summary judgment that driver of car involved in high-speed chase intended or...