Posted On: February 23, 2006, 4:35 pm CST

Posted By: Brian

As a fellow CPCU, I must point out that it's coverage section E of the HO-3 that would apply to liability exposures (section A covers loss to the dwelling).

However, I must agree with the assertion that intentional injury would be excluded under coverage section E. The standard HO-3 policy would not cover loss resulting from bodily injury for "expected or intended injury" caused by an insured.

The judges obviously did not read the homeowners policy, or have chosen to ignore the exclusion. Courts have been known to say that it's best public policy for an insurer to provide coverage even when an established exclusion is present.

Policy wording would state that bodily injury arising from an expected or intended injury is NOT covered, even if 1) the injury is different than the insured intented (only hoped to wound someone, not kill them) or 2) the injury was sustained by a person different than the insured intented (wanted to shoot person A, but shot person B instead). If it's intentional and there is an expected or intented injury, it's EXCLUDED.

An unfortunate ruling for the insurance company.