Opinion ID: 2798275
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intentional Conversion

Text: In Oklahoma, conversion is “the unauthorized assumption and exercise of dominion over personal property of another which is inconsistent with the rights of the owner.” Harmon, 286 P.3d at 649 (citing Welty v. Martinaire of Okla., Inc., 867 P.2d 1273, 1275 (Okla. 1994)). One element of conversion is that a defendant “intentionally diverted [the property] for his own personal benefit.” Harmon, 286 P.3d at 649 (emphasis added). By alleging that Custom “knew” it had wrongfully and without authorization misappropriated the fax recipients’ toner and paper for its own personal benefit, CE - 13 - Design sufficiently pleaded a claim for conversion. But by proving its allegations, CE Design would be defeating policy coverage. Custom could not know that its misappropriation of the recipients’ property was wrongful without also intentionally misappropriating the property. After all, everyone knows that sending a fax results in a receiving fax machine printing the message on paper with toner. Cf. Equity Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 178 P.3d 201, 205 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008) (concluding that injuries caused by driving an automobile into a pedestrian, even at a slow speed, “cannot be considered otherwise than ‘so natural and probable as to be expected by any reasonable person,’ and ‘the result . . . so natural and probable as to be expected by any reasonable person,’ and ‘the result . . . so foreseeable as not to be accidental’”) (citation omitted). In such a case, the policy does not provide coverage. And, even if it did, the policy would later exclude it under the expected-or-intended-injury exclusion. Under Coverage A, as mentioned, the policy applies only if “‘property damage’ is caused by an ‘occurrence.’” Appellant’s App. vol. I at 174. The policy defines “occurrence” as an accident. Appellant’s App. vol. I at 187. In turn, Oklahoma defines “accident” using a plain language, dictionary meaning: “[a]n event that takes place without one’s foresight or expectation; an undersigned, sudden and unexpected event, chance, contingency.” U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Briscoe, 239 P.2d 754, 757 (Okla. 1951). Illinois (where the alleged conversion took place) has a similar - 14 - definition.8 See Viking Const. Mgmt., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 831 N.E.2d 1, 6 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (defining “accident” as “an unforeseen occurrence . . . or an undersigned sudden or unexpected event of an inflictive or unfortunate character”). The problem for CE Design is that, by proving its intentional conversion claim, it would also disprove that an accident caused its property damages. That would leave it with a claim that falls outside Emcasco’s duty to defend and the policy’s coverage.