Under Hawaii law, an occurrence could not be the expected or reasonably foreseeable result of the insured's own intentional actions or omissions.

The policy provided personal liability coverage "if a claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence[.]" The policy continues in defining " occurrence" as an accident resulting in bodily injury. Bodily injury is physical injury but does not include emotional distress, mental anguish, or any similar injury unless it arises out of actual physical harm to a person. Liability coverage does not apply to "bodily injury. . . (1) which is either expected or intended by the insured; or (2) which is the result of willful and malicious acts of the insured."

The personal liability umbrella program (PLUP) provides coverage for damages "if a claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for damages because of a loss for which the insured is legally liable and to which this policy applies[.]" The PLUP provides a " defense to the insured. . . when the basis for the suit is a loss that is not covered by any other insurance policy but is covered by this policy." The PLUP defines a "loss" as an accident. . . which first results in bodily injury. . . or. . . the commission of an offense which first results in a personal injury during the policy period. The PLUP defines "bodily injury" the same as the homeowners policy, and "personal injury" to include "the invasion of a person's right of private occupancy by physically entering into that persons' personal residence." Also, like the homeowners policy, the PLUP excludes bodily injury when it is expected or intended by the insured, or the result of any willful and malicious act of the insured. It also excludes coverage for personal injury "when the insured acts with specific intent to cause any harm."

The court found there was no occurrence under the homeowners policy. The underlying action alleged no "accident" from the standpoint of the insured and described entirely intentional acts by the insured by placing a hidden camera without permission of the neighbors. The underlying action also failed to allege a bodily injury.  The policy stated that bodily injury did not include "emotional distress, mental anguish  . . . or any similar injury . . ." Even if the underlying complaint did allege a bodily injury, the injury would still be excluded as "either expected or intended by the insured" or "the result of willful and malicious acts of the insured."

The court also found that there was no coverage under the PLUP, again because there was no accident as the insured's acts were entirely intentional or knowing. The court found in favor of State Farm and found that the insurer owed no coverage duties for the underlying action.

Editor's Note: Along with the provisions discussed in this case, many insurance policies include a coverage exclusion for criminal acts. As the insured was arrested and tried prior to this lawsuit, the actions that he took in this case were clearly criminal. Although Rodriguez was convicted of several crimes, the court did not consider those convictions as conclusive proof that Rodriguez acted with intent. The court did not need to rely upon the conviction to grant State Farm's motion, as the allegations of the underlying complaint themselves alleged completely intentional and criminal acts and there was no evidence presented in the record to the contrary.