Opinion ID: 1734552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Wording of the Exclusion.

Text: The claimants have an alternative argument: that there is a distinction in the language of this exclusion, which applies to any person, while the language in other policies provided an exclusion for acts intended by the insured. They argue that this introduces an objective standard for evaluating intent and makes it more difficult to resolve the issue as a matter of law. Even if we agreed that this establishes an objective test for intent, it would not help these claimants' case. The inference of intent, we believe, would be even stronger under an objective test. The claimants also challenge several evidentiary rulings by the trial court. Because we find as a matter of law that the policy did not provide coverage, we need not address the evidentiary questions. AFFIRMED.