Opinion ID: 848916
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: masters

Text: Masters involved an intentionally set fire that had the unintended result of destroying nearly a block of business establishments. As in this case, the policy in Masters provided coverage for an occurrence, which was later defined in the policy as an accident. 460 Mich. at 113, 595 N.W.2d 832. The insureds claimed that the event was an accident because, although the fire in their business premises was deliberately set, they did not intend to damage the adjoining buildings. The Court of Appeals applied a subjective standard in assessing whether the insured arsonists expected or intended to burn properties other than their own. This Court reversed. We first gave accident its customary, ordinary meaning as an undesigned contingency, a casualty, a happening by chance, something not anticipated,... and not naturally to be expected. Id. at 114, 595 N.W.2d 832. Having defined accident, we nevertheless recognized the difficulty of categorizing cases in which the action giving rise to the harm was intended even though the consequences were not. We unanimously held that an insured's intentional actions precluded coverage even though the insureds claimed not to have intended the consequences of their actions where the insured reasonably should have expected the harm the insured's acts created. We adopted this objective standard from Justice GRIFFIN'S concurrence in Auto Club Group Ins. Co. v. Marzonie, 447 Mich. 624, 648-649, 527 N.W.2d 760 (1994): In such cases, a determination must be made whether the consequences of the insured's intentional act either were intended by the insured or reasonably should have been expected because of the direct risk of harm intentionally created by the insured's actions. When an insured acts intending to cause property damage or personal injury, liability coverage should be denied, irrespective of whether the resulting injury is different from the injury intended. Similarly,... when an insured's intentional actions create a direct risk of harm, there can be no liability coverage for any resulting damage or injury, despite the lack of an actual intent to damage or injure. [ Masters, 460 Mich. at 115-116, 595 N.W.2d 832 (Emphasis added.)] Granting summary disposition to the insurer, this Court held that, because the Masters intended to cause harm, [i]t is irrelevant whether the harm that resulted, damage to the clothing store and surrounding businesses, was different from or exceeded the harm intended, minor damage to the clothing inventory. Id. at 116-117, 595 N.W.2d 832. We later applied this same objective test in Nabozny.