Opinion ID: 751714
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion for Expected or Intended Injury

Text: 45 In addition to arguing that it was not obligated to defend in the Film House action because Koenig's repossession of the BMW automobile was not an accident, Massachusetts Bay further contends that the exclusionary provision in Koenig's policy, which reads as follows, brings about the same result: B. EXCLUSIONS 46 This insurance does not apply to any of the following: 1. EXPECTED OR INTENDED INJURY 47 Bodily injury or property damage expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured. But for garage operations other than covered autos this exclusion does not apply to bodily injury resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property. 48 (R. 1, Ex. A, Garage Coverage Form, at 3 (emphasis added)). Koenig consciously acted to repossess the BMW automobile with both the intention and expectation that Film House would not be able to use it. Thus, Film House's loss of use of the vehicle was both expected and intended from Koenig's standpoint, and as such, it would be disingenuous to suggest that the above-quoted exclusionary language was inapplicable. Tennessee courts have enforced similar exclusionary provisions when an insurer refused to defend its insured. See, e.g., Graves v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 745 S.W.2d 282, 284 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987) (We believe the exclusion is applicable if bodily injury is 'intended or expected' by the insured where the insured acts with the intent or expectation that bodily injury will result.). Without elaborating any further, we conclude that the expected or intended injury exclusion also justified Massachusetts Bay's refusal to defend Koenig in the Film House suit. 49