Opinion ID: 149600
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Criminal-Act Exclusion and Intent

Text: Even if Morelli's contradictory testimony were admissible, Progressive does not need to prove intent for the criminal-act exclusion to apply. The plain language of Progressive's criminal-act exclusion has no intent requirement. Absent such language, Minnesota courts refuse to imply an intent requirement for purposes of the criminal act exclusion. SECURA, 755 N.W.2d at 325. Also, if the policy has separate exclusions for criminal and intentional acts, courts interpret the two as entirely separate, and the intent requirement does not extend to the criminal-act exclusion. See id.; see also Liebenstein v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 N.W.2d 73, 75-76 (Minn.Ct.App.1994). McDonough argues Liebenstein and SECURA are not controlling because these cases involved policy holders claiming they lacked the intent to do harm, and Morelli lacked the intent to complete the act. However, the facts of these cases are not relevant for purposes of this opinion. The holdings in Liebenstein and SECURA turned on contract interpretation, not factual circumstances. See Liebenstein, 517 N.W.2d at 75; see also SECURA, 755 N.W.2d at 325. Therefore, Morelli's guilty plea conclusively places the liability for the injuries to McDonough under the criminal-act exclusion. Whether or not Morelli intended to complete the act is irrelevant for determining if the exclusion applies. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.