Opinion ID: 2009491
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Intentional Injury Exclusion

Text: ¶ 57 In determining whether there is a duty to defend, the court first considers whether the insuring agreement makes an initial grant of coverage. Am. Girl, 268 Wis. 2d 16, ¶24. Where it is clear that the policy was not intended to cover the claims asserted, the inquiry ends. Id. Only after concluding that coverage exists does the court examine the policy's exclusions to determine whether they preclude coverage. Id. ¶ 58 Since we concluded above that the plaintiffs' suit does not give rise to coverage for Jeffrey's actions, we need not consider the policy's intentional injury exclusion. ¶ 59 The language of the Mathewses' policy resolves the question of the duty to continue to defend once the question of coverage has been decided. The defense provision of the policy states that defense counsel will be provided by American Family [i]f a suit is brought against any insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence to which this policy applies. (Emphasis added.) ¶ 60 Since the plaintiffs' suit was not brought against the Mathewses for damages caused by an occurrence to which th[e] policy applies, American Family has no duty to continue to defend.