Intentional Acts and Unintentional Results

August 18, 2011

I am handling a homeowners liability claim under the HO5 policy. Our insured was conducting a controlled burn on his property. Winds picked up during the burn and caught his neighbor's lawn on fire and damaged trees on the neighbor's property. The expected or intended exclusion states that even if the damage is of a different kind, quality, or degree than initially expected, it is still considered intended. Would this apply to the neighbor's damaged property as well because our insured expected or intended to burn his property but not his neighbor's?

Connecticut Subscriber

In State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Leverton, 732 N.E.2d 1094 (Ill. 2000), the court stated that under the intentional acts exclusion coverage is denied when the insured has intended to act and specifically intended to harm a third party; the case involved the insured striking a third party with a beer bottle.

 

In most cases where the exclusion held, the intended action was injury or damage to a third party or a third party's property. In U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Perez, 384 So.2d 904 (1980), the court ruled that while the insured intended to only frighten another party by pointing a gun at him and fired accidentally killing the other party, that coverage still applied. There was no intent to hit or kill anyone, so the intentional act exclusion did not apply.

 

In this situation, your insured was doing a controlled burn on his own property with no intent to damage property of others. Therefore, the exclusion should not apply.