Opinion ID: 1238678
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The American Family Policies and Applicable Insurance-Law Principles

Text: The Goderstads and National Plastics were covered under four American Family insurance policies during the relevant time period  a homeowner's policy, an umbrella liability policy, and two business policies  the relevant portions of which are not materially different. Each policy provides coverage for property damage caused by an occurrence. As is usually the case, occurrence is defined in the policies as an accident, but the term accident is otherwise left undefined. Wisconsin caselaw provides several alternative definitions, all of which attempt to capture the fortuity principle central to liability insurance. Lucterhand v. Granite Microsystems, Inc., 564 F.3d 809, 812-13 (7th Cir.2009). An accident for purposes of liability insurance coverage is [a]n unexpected, undesirable event or an unforeseen incident which is characterized by a lack of intention. Everson v. Lorenz, 2005 WI 51, ¶ 15, 280 Wis.2d 1, ¶ 15, 695 N.W.2d 298, ¶ 15 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). `The word accident, in accident policies, means an event which takes place without one's foresight or expectation. A result, though unexpected, is not an accident; the means or cause must be accidental.' Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Girl, Inc., 2004 WI 2, ¶ 37, 268 Wis.2d 16, ¶ 37, 673 N.W.2d 65, ¶ 37 (2004) (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 15 (7th ed.1999)). American Family will owe a continuing duty to defend the Goderstads if the allegations in the Ebertses' complaint raise the possibility of coverage under the foregoing policy language. Lucterhand, 564 F.3d at 811; Wausau Tile, Inc. v. County Concrete Corp., 226 Wis.2d 235, 593 N.W.2d 445, 459 (1999) ([T]he duty to defend hinges on the nature, not the merits, of the claim.); see also Doyle v. Engelke, 219 Wis.2d 277, 580 N.W.2d 245, 248 (1998). On appeal, the Goderstads have focused on just two of the seven claims in the underlying suit; they contend that the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation under § 100.18 and the claim for negligent misrepresentation fall potentially within their policies' coverages. [3]