Court Opinion

ID: 9366214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 14:10:21.324696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.791379
License: Public Domain

2023 WI 6

                   SUPREME COURT              OF      WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:                2020AP1943

COMPLETE TITLE:          Lindsey Dostal, Individually and as Special
                         Administrator of the Estate of Haeven Dostal,
                                   Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent-
                         Petitioner,
                              v.
                         Curtis Strand and ABC Insurance Company,
                                   Defendants,
                         State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,
                                   Intervening-Defendant-Respondent-
                         Cross-Appellant.

                              REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
                              Reported at 399 Wis. 2d 781, 967 N.W.2d 157
                                  PDC No: 2021 WI App 79 - Published

OPINION FILED:           January 26, 2023
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:           October 6, 2022

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
   COURT:                Circuit
   COUNTY:               Barron
   JUDGE:                James C. Babler

JUSTICES:
ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., delivered the majority opinion of the
Court, in which DALLET, HAGEDORN, and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined.
ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROGGENSACK
and REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, JJ., joined.
NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:

       For         the   plaintiff-appellant-cross-respondent-petitioner,
there       were     briefs    filed   by   Michael   J.   Brose,   Mackenzie   E.
Campbell, Morgan A. Richie, and Doar, Drill & Skow, S.C., New
Richmond. There was an oral argument by Mackenzie E. Campbell.
    For     the   intervening-defendant-respondent-cross-appellant,
there was a brief filed by William L. Moran, Maya H. Digre, and
HAWS-KM, P.A., St. Paul. There was an oral argument by William
L. Moran.

    An amicus curiae brief was filed by Michael J. Cerjak and
Cannon & Dunphy, S.C., Brookfield, for Wisconsin Association for
Justice.

                                  2
                                                                   2023 WI 6
                                                          NOTICE
                                            This opinion is subject to further
                                            editing and modification.   The final
                                            version will appear in the bound
                                            volume of the official reports.
No.    2020AP1943
(L.C. No.   2019CV217)

STATE OF WISCONSIN                      :            IN SUPREME COURT

Lindsey Dostal, Individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Haeven Dostal,

          Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent-
Petitioner,

      v.                                                       FILED
Curtis Strand and ABC Insurance Company,
                                                          JAN 26, 2023
            Defendants,
                                                             Sheila T. Reiff
                                                          Clerk of Supreme Court
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,

          Intervening-Defendant-Respondent-
Cross-Appellant.

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., delivered the majority opinion of the
Court, in which DALLET, HAGEDORN, and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined.
ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROGGENSACK
and REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, JJ., joined.

      REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.            Reversed and

cause remanded.

      ¶1    ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   The petitioner, Lindsey Dostal
(Dostal), both individually and as special administrator of the
                                                                           No.    2020AP1943

estate of Haeven Dostal, seeks review of a court of appeals

decision    affirming       the     circuit       court's    grant    of    summary      and

declaratory judgment in favor of State Farm.1                              The court of

appeals     determined          that     Curtis      Strand's      conduct        did    not

constitute an "occurrence" covered by the State Farm policy at

issue because his conviction for second-degree reckless homicide

established that the death was not the result of an accident.

      ¶2        Dostal contends that Strand's criminal conviction does

not preclude a finding that Haeven's death was the result of an

accident.         She    further       advances      that   the    State    Farm    policy

provides coverage for her claims against Strand and that neither

the resident relative nor the intentional acts exclusion bars

coverage.

      ¶3        In contrast, State Farm asserts that issue preclusion

bars relitigation of the issue of whether Haeven's death was the

result     of    an     accident.        It    argues       that   Strand's       criminal

conviction is dispositive on the issue of available insurance

coverage under Strand's policy, and that there is no coverage
for   Dostal's        claims.       State     Farm    further      contends       that   the

policy's        resident    relative        and    intentional       acts        exclusions

preclude coverage.

      ¶4        We conclude that issue preclusion does not bar Dostal

from seeking insurance coverage for her claims against Strand.

The issue of whether Strand's conduct constituted an "accident"

      1Dostal v. Strand, 2021 WI App 79, 399 Wis. 2d 781, 967
N.W.2d 157 (affirming order of the circuit court for Barron
County, James C. Babler, Judge).

                                              2
                                                                      No.    2020AP1943

was not actually litigated in the prior criminal proceeding.

Additionally,     we    conclude      that   there    are     genuine       issues    of

material fact regarding the application of the resident relative

and intentional acts exclusions such that summary judgment is

inappropriate.

       ¶5    Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of

appeals and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

                                         I

       ¶6    The following facts are undisputed.                Additional facts

will be set forth as necessary in our analysis.

       ¶7    Dostal and Strand were in an on-and-off relationship

for 17 years.        Dostal gave birth to Haeven on April 3, 2017, and

Strand was subsequently adjudicated the father.

       ¶8    On July 11, 2017, Haeven passed away as a result of

head trauma that occurred while she was in Strand's care.                            Law

enforcement conducted an investigation into Haeven's death.

       ¶9    As part of the investigation, law enforcement spoke
with    Strand       multiple    times,      during      which        Strand      gave

inconsistent accounts of what happened.               In a statement given to

police on July 10, 2017, Strand said that Haeven fell off of his

knee and hit the floor as he attempted to burp her.                         Strand was

interviewed again in November of 2017, at which time he stated

that he was warming a bottle, turned around and hit the kitchen

island,     dropping    Haeven   to    the   floor.      In    both     versions      of

events,     Strand     put   Haeven    to    bed     without    seeking        medical
attention.
                                         3
                                                                                   No.     2020AP1943

       ¶10    The State initially charged Strand with first-degree

reckless      homicide2        and       resisting        or     obstructing        an     officer.3

After a jury trial, at which Dostal was a witness, the jury

convicted          Strand      of     second-degree              reckless      homicide4            and

resisting or obstructing an officer.

       ¶11    Dostal        subsequently             brought      this     civil      action        for

negligence and wrongful death against Strand.                                  With regard to

the    negligence         claim,         the    complaint          alleges         that    Haeven's

"injuries          were     proximately          caused          by    the    negligent            acts

of . . . Strand,            including           but       not     limited      to,         negligent

supervision,         failing        to    properly         hold       or   secure         Haeven     to

prevent her from falling, [and] failing to contact emergency

services in a reasonable manner."                               As to the wrongful death

claim, Dostal alleged that she "has sustained damages due to the

wrongful      death       of    her       daughter,         loss      of     the     society        and

companionship of her child, and has suffered pecuniary loss and

will continue to suffer those losses into the future."

       ¶12    Strand        tendered           the       matter       to   State         Farm,      his
homeowner's insurer, seeking defense and indemnification.                                        State

Farm       moved    to    intervene,           bifurcate          liability        and     coverage

       2   Wis. Stat. § 940.02(1) (2017-18).

     All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to
the 2017-18 version unless otherwise indicated.
       3   Wis. Stat. § 946.41(1).
       4   Wis. Stat. § 940.06(1).

                                                     4
                                                                     No.    2020AP1943

proceedings, and stay liability proceedings.5                  The circuit court

granted   State       Farm's     motion    and     went     ahead    with   coverage

proceedings.

    ¶13    State Farm moved for summary and declaratory judgment,

arguing that its policy did not provide coverage for Dostal's

claims and that it thus had no duty to defend or indemnify

Strand.      Specifically, State Farm asserted that there was no

"occurrence" (defined as an "accident") triggering coverage.                         In

State Farm's view, the fact that Strand was convicted of second-

degree reckless homicide, which required that the jury find that

Strand created an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or

great bodily harm and that he was aware of that risk, precluded

the events at issue "from being labeled a mere 'accident.'"

State   Farm   additionally        argued      that   even    if    there    were   an

"occurrence,"        coverage    remains       precluded     under    a     "resident

relative" exclusion and an "intentional acts" exclusion.

    ¶14    The circuit court agreed with State Farm and granted

its motion for summary and declaratory judgment.                      It concluded
that "[t]he criminal recklessness in this case requires more

than accidental conduct."           With regard to the resident relative

exclusion,     the     circuit     court       determined    that    "[t]here       are

    5  See Newhouse by Skow v. Citizens Sec. Mut. Ins. Co., 176
Wis. 2d 824, 836, 501 N.W.2d 1 (1993) (explaining that "the
proper procedure for an insurance company to follow when
coverage is disputed is to request a bifurcated trial on the
issues of coverage and liability and move to stay any
proceedings on liability until the issue of coverage is
resolved"); Elliott v. Donahue, 169 Wis. 2d 310, 318, 485
N.W.2d 403 (1992).

                                           5
                                                                              No.        2020AP1943

disputed      material       facts    as   to     whether      or    not      Haeven        was   a

resident     under     the    State    Farm       policy."          Finally,        as    to   the

intentional      acts    exclusion,        the     circuit     court       concluded           that

this   exclusion       "also    operates          to    bar   coverage        in    this       case

because Strand's intent can be inferred as a matter of law."

       ¶15    Dostal appealed the circuit court's grant of summary

judgment      and    declaratory       judgment          in   favor      of    State        Farm.

Additionally, State Farm cross-appealed from the portion of the

circuit      court's    decision      finding          disputed     issues     of        material

fact as to the application of the resident relative exclusion.

       ¶16    The    court     of    appeals       affirmed       the    circuit          court's

decision in a published opinion.                       Dostal v. Strand, 2021 WI App

79, 399 Wis. 2d 781, 967 N.W.2d 157.                      Its analysis mirrored that

of the circuit court.           Namely, the court of appeals determined:

       Under the undisputed facts of this case, we conclude
       that the Policy did not provide coverage for Dostal's
       claims.   A jury in a criminal trial rejected the
       argument that Strand's actions were accidental and
       convicted him of second-degree reckless homicide.   In
       doing so, the jury necessarily found, beyond a
       reasonable doubt, that Strand was aware that his
       conduct created an unreasonable and substantial risk
       of harm to Haeven such that her death did not result
       from an accident.   Accordingly, Strand's conduct did
       not constitute an occurrence under the Policy.
       Because we conclude there was no occurrence, the
       Policy provides no coverage for Dostal's claim against
       Strand.
Id., ¶3.      Because the court of appeals concluded that there was

no occurrence, it declined to address the resident relative and

intentional acts exclusions.                  Id., ¶3 n.1.              Dostal petitioned
for this court's review.

                                              6
                                                                                   No.       2020AP1943

                                                   II

      ¶17    We are called upon to review the court of appeals'

determination that the circuit court properly granted summary

and declaratory judgment to State Farm.                                  We review a summary

judgment     determination            independently                 of    the     determinations

rendered by the circuit court and court of appeals, applying the

same methodology as the circuit court.                               MacLeish v. Boardman &

Clark LLP, 2019 WI 31,                ¶22, 386 Wis. 2d 50, 924 N.W.2d 799.

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue

as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.                  Id.

      ¶18    The        grant    or    denial           of     declaratory             judgment      is

addressed     to     the       circuit    court's             discretion,         but        when    the

exercise     of    such    discretion          turns          on    a    question       of    law,    we

likewise review the question independently of the circuit court

and court of appeals' determinations.                              Olson v. Farrar, 2012 WI

3,   ¶24,    338    Wis. 2d 215,          809          N.W.2d 1.           Where       the     circuit

court's      grant        of     declaratory                 judgment          turns     upon        its
interpretation of an insurance policy, a question of law is

presented.        Id.

      ¶19    In    our     review,       we    examine             whether      issue    preclusion

applies.      "Whether issue preclusion is a potential limit on

litigation in an individual case is a question of law, on which

we give no deference to the circuit court's decision."                                          Mrozek

v.   Intra   Fin.       Corp.,    2005        WI       73,    ¶15,       281    Wis. 2d 448,         699

N.W.2d 54.

                                                   7
                                                                       No.   2020AP1943

       ¶20     Finally, our review requires us to interpret the State

Farm       insurance   policy      at    issue.       The     interpretation    of   an

insurance policy presents a question of law we review without

deference to the circuit court or court of appeals.                      Shugarts v.

Mohr, 2018 WI 27, ¶18, 380 Wis. 2d 512, 909 N.W.2d 402.                              "A

policy's terms are interpreted as they would be understood from

the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the

insured."         Id., ¶20.

                                             III

       ¶21     We address first the doctrine of issue preclusion and

whether      it    serves     as   a   bar   to    Dostal's    claim   for   insurance

coverage in this case.6                Subsequently, we discuss the policy's

resident relative and intentional acts exclusions.

                                             A

       ¶22     "The doctrine of issue preclusion, formerly known as

collateral estoppel, is designed to limit the relitigation of

issues that have been actually litigated in a previous action."

       As an initial matter, State Farm asserts that Dostal
       6

forfeited any argument that issue preclusion applies because
such an argument was not raised in the circuit court or court of
appeals.    However, even if the circuit court and court of
appeals did not use the words "issue preclusion," their
decisions clearly were grounded in the doctrine.      State Farm
highlights the focus of its argument as "whether insurance
coverage is available under the terms of the Policy for
Strand's . . . reckless acts when those very same acts were
fully litigated and form the basis of his criminal conviction."
In other words, this is an argument that previous litigation of
the issue precludes the present claim, or that "issue
preclusion" applies.     As Dostal responds, "[t]he preclusive
effect of Strand's conviction has always been and remains
central to this dispute." The issue is therefore not forfeited.

                                             8
                                                                  No.   2020AP1943

Aldrich      v.    LIRC,   2012   WI   53,   ¶88,     341   Wis. 2d 36,       814

N.W.2d 433.        A party asserting issue preclusion has the burden

to establish that it should be applied.           Id.

      ¶23    Our analysis of an issue preclusion question proceeds

in two steps.       We determine (1) whether issue preclusion can, as

a   matter    of    law,   be   applied,   and   if   so,   (2)    whether    the

application of issue preclusion would be fundamentally fair.7

Id., ¶89.     If the analysis fails on the first prong, there is no

need to address the second.            Paige K.B. ex rel. Peterson v.

Steven G.B., 226 Wis. 2d 210, 224-25, 594 Wis. 2d 370 (1999).

      7"The case law has set forth five factors, which are not
exclusive or dispositive, to aid a circuit court in determining
whether application of issue preclusion is fundamentally fair."
Est. of Rille v. Physicians Ins. Co., 2007 WI 36, ¶38, 300
Wis. 2d 1, 728 N.W.2d 693. Those factors are as follows:

      Courts may consider some or all of the following
      factors to protect the rights of all parties to a full
      and fair adjudication of all issues involved in the
      action:   (1) could the party against whom preclusion
      is sought, as a matter of law, have obtained review of
      the judgment; (2) is the question one of law that
      involves two distinct claims or intervening contextual
      shifts in the law; (3) do significant differences in
      the quality or extensiveness of proceedings between
      the two courts warrant relitigation of the issue; (4)
      have the burdens of persuasion shifted such that the
      party seeking preclusion had a lower burden of
      persuasion in the first trial than in the second; or
      (5) are matters of public policy and individual
      circumstances   involved   that   would   render   the
      application of [issue preclusion] to be fundamentally
      unfair, including inadequate opportunity or incentive
      to obtain a full and fair adjudication in the initial
      action?

Michelle T. by Sumpter v. Crozier, 173 Wis. 2d 681, 688-89, 495
N.W.2d 327 (1993).

                                       9
                                                                        No.     2020AP1943

    ¶24      In the first step of the analysis, we must determine

whether the issue or fact was actually litigated and determined

in the prior proceeding by a valid judgment in a previous action

and whether the determination was essential to the judgment.

Est. of Rille v. Physicians Ins. Co., 2007 WI 36, ¶37, 300

Wis. 2d 1, 728 N.W.2d 693.                "An issue is 'actually litigated'

when it is 'properly raised, by the pleadings or otherwise, and

is submitted for determination, and is determined.'"                          Randall v.

Felt (In re Est. of Felt), 2002 WI App 157, ¶9, 256 Wis. 2d 563,

647 N.W.2d 373 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27

cmt. d (1980)).          For issue preclusion to bar relitigation, the

issue sought to be precluded must have been actually litigated

previously.         Lindas     v.    Cady,        183     Wis. 2d 547,         559,     515

N.W.2d 458 (1994).         This stands in contrast to claim preclusion,

which extends to all claims that either were or could have been

asserted in the previous litigation.                Id.

    ¶25      The   insurance      policy     in    this      case    sets     forth    that

coverage is provided for an "occurrence."                         An "occurrence," in
turn,   is   defined      under     the    policy       as   an     "accident,"       which

results in, as relevant here, "bodily injury."                        The policy does

not include a definition for "accident."                      In interpreting this

term, we keep in mind that we read insurance policies from the

perspective    of    a    reasonable       person       in   the     position     of    the

insured.     Shugarts, 380 Wis. 2d 512, ¶20.                      We have previously

described an "accident" as an event "occurring by chance or

arising from unknown or remote causes" and "an event which takes
place without one's foresight or expectation."                          Am. Fam. Mut.
                                           10
                                                                          No.     2020AP1943

Ins. Co. v. Am. Girl, Inc., 2004 WI 2, ¶37, 268 Wis. 2d 16, 673

N.W.2d 65.

       ¶26    State Farm contends that the issue of Strand's fault

was actually litigated in a prior action, namely the criminal

case    against    Strand.         It    asserts        that    the     jury's     verdict

convicting        Strand      of        second-degree             reckless        homicide

conclusively       determined      that,      because       Strand's       conduct       was

reckless, Haeven's death could not have been an "accident" for

purposes of insurance coverage.

       ¶27    The offense of second-degree reckless homicide is set

forth    as    follows:      "Whoever       recklessly         causes     the    death    of

another human being is guilty of a Class D felony."                             Wis. Stat.

§ 940.06(1).          In     turn,          the        statutes        define     criminal

recklessness, as relevant here, to mean "that the actor creates

an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily

harm to another human being and the actor is aware of that

risk."       Wis. Stat. § 939.24(1).

       ¶28    Accordingly,      in      a    prosecution          for      second-degree
reckless homicide, the State has the burden to show beyond a

reasonable doubt that two elements were present.                           See State v.

Neumann, 2013 WI 58, ¶91, 348 Wis. 2d 455, 832 N.W.2d 560.                               The

relevant jury instruction sets forth those elements as follows:

       1. The defendant caused the death of (name of victim).

       "Cause"   means  that   the  defendant's   act                       was     a
       substantial factor in producing the death.

       2. The defendant            caused        the    death     by     criminally
       reckless conduct.

                                            11
                                                                      No.     2020AP1943

    "Criminally reckless conduct" means:

           the conduct created a risk of death                       or    great
            bodily harm to another person; and

           the risk of death or great bodily                         harm    was
            unreasonable and substantial; and

           the defendant was aware that (his)(her) conduct
            created the unreasonable and substantial risk of
            death or great bodily harm.
Wis JI——Criminal 1060 (2015).

    ¶29     We are asked to discern whether being aware of the

risk that something might happen necessarily means that when

that thing happens, it is not an "accident."                        Dostal asserts

that this question should be answered in the negative.                               She

contends that none of the elements of second-degree reckless

homicide that the jury found would preclude a determination that

Haeven's death was an accident.

    ¶30     State Farm, on the other hand, advances that in this

analysis    we   should   focus      on    the    conduct    itself    and     not   the

result of the conduct in determining whether conduct was an

accident.        In   other   words,       State    Farm     points    the     court's

attention to the "injury-causing event" and not the injury.                          See

Schinner    v.   Gundrum,     2013    WI    71,    ¶66,     349   Wis. 2d 529,       833

N.W.2d 685.       Under   this    theory,        even   if   Haeven's        death   was

unintentional, Strand's conduct that led to the death was still

not accidental because he was aware of the risk of death, and

that is where our focus should be for purposes of coverage.

                                           12
                                                     No.   2020AP1943

     ¶31   In beginning our analysis of this issue, we observe

that there is no Wisconsin case law directly on point.8    Thus, we

may look to case law of other states for guidance.     See Russ ex

rel. Schwartz v. Russ, 2007 WI 83, ¶34 n.9, 302 Wis. 2d 264, 734

N.W.2d 874.

     ¶32   We find particularly informative two cases in which

there was a conviction for a reckless crime and a later question

of the preclusive effect of that conviction.   The first of these

cases is the New York court of appeals'9 decision in Allstate

Insurance Co. v. Zuk, 574 N.E.2d 1035 (N.Y. 1991).         In that

case, Zuk was cleaning and loading a shotgun in a hunting lodge

     8 The dissent asserts that our analysis begins on the "wrong
foot" because it does not focus on Wisconsin's direct action
statute, Wis. Stat. § 632.24.      Dissent, ¶69.   The suggested
preeminence of a direct action statute is perplexing because
such focus is ultimately unnecessary.

     As the dissent states, pursuant to the direct action
statute "the liability to which the insurer is exposed is
predicated upon the liability of the insured."      Kranzush v.
Badger State Mut. Cas. Co., 103 Wis. 2d 56, 75, 307 N.W.2d 256
(1981).   In other words, Dostal's right to recover from State
Farm depends on Strand's right to indemnification from State
Farm. So the question becomes: when is State Farm required to
indemnify Strand? According to the policy, the answer is: when
there is an occurrence. And when is there an occurrence? When
there is an accident, which as we determine, is an argument that
is not precluded in this case.      The direct action statute,
following a more circuitous route, thus leads to an examination
of whether there could be an "accident" here, the very same
question this opinion already addresses. Consequently, it does
not affect our analysis.
     9 Following a different naming scheme than the court system
in Wisconsin, the court of appeals in New York is that state's
highest court. See State v. Brownson, 157 Wis. 2d 404, 411, 459
N.W.2d 877 (Ct. App. 1990).

                               13
                                                                            No.    2020AP1943

and accidentally shot and killed his friend, Smith.                                     Id. at

1036.        Zuk    was       charged       and     convicted       of   second         degree

manslaughter.           Id.      Smith's          estate    subsequently          brought    a

wrongful death action against Zuk and Zuk sought defense and

indemnification from Allstate, his homeowner's insurer.                             Id.

       ¶33   Allstate         argued    that       Zuk's     conviction       for       second

degree manslaughter established as a matter of law that Zuk

reasonably expected that his acts would cause Smith's death, and

that this finding in the criminal proceeding should be given

preclusive effect in the subsequent civil action.                            Id. at 1037.

The court rejected Allstate's argument, concluding that "Zuk's

criminal     conviction         does    not        collaterally      block        the    civil

litigation of the issue whether Smith's death could 'reasonably

be   expected      to   result'    from       Zuk's    acts.        Under    this       policy

provision, in the factual context of this dispute and procedural

framework, that issue cannot be resolved as a matter of law."

Id. at 1036.

       ¶34   In arriving at this determination, the court observed
that    "Zuk's      conviction         of    second        degree    manslaughter          was

necessarily based on a finding that he recklessly caused Smith's

death."      Id. at 1037.              It therefore cited the definition of

criminal recklessness under New York law, which is substantially

similar to that under Wisconsin law:

       A person acts recklessly, in a criminal context, when
       that person is aware of and consciously disregards a
       substantial and unjustifiable risk of a result, where
       the risk is of such a nature and degree that to
       disregard it constitutes a gross deviation from the
       standard of conduct of a reasonable person.

                                              14
                                                                      No.   2020AP1943

Id. at 1037-38.

      ¶35   But the fact that the jury determined that Zuk was

reckless     did    not   necessarily        mean     that     his     conduct    was

reasonably to be expected to result in Smith's death as the

policy exclusion's language required:                 "A person may engage in

behavior that involves a calculated risk without expecting——no

less reasonably——that an accident will occur.                        Such behavior,

which may be reckless for criminal responsibility purposes, does

not   necessarily     mean    that   the     actor    reasonably      expected     the

accident    to     result."     Id.    at     1038.      The    Zuk     court     thus

ultimately    determined      that    "the    issue    whether       Smith's     death

could 'reasonably be expected to result' from Zuk's acts was not

necessarily determined in the criminal proceeding and was not

identical to the issues that were determined there."                    Id.

      ¶36   Additional guidance comes from the Illinois appellate

court's decision in Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance

Co. v. Pittington, 841 N.E.2d 413 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).10                       There,

      10The dissent contends that the Illinois appellate court
declined to follow Pittington in Allstate Indemnity Co. v.
Hieber, 24 N.E.3d 139 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). Dissent, ¶81. But
nothing in the Hieber decision indicates that Pittington is no
longer good law.   All the Hieber court determined is that the
facts of that case were more analogous to those in American
Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Savickas, 739 N.E.2d 445 (Ill.
2000), than to Pittington.      Hieber, 24 N.E.3d at 144 ("We
believe   this  case  is   more   analogous to   Savickas  than
Pittington.") Savickas has no application here because in that
case, the insured at his criminal trial testified that "the gun
did not go off accidentally" and that he "intentionally pointed
the gun . . . and pulled the trigger while the gun was so
aimed." Savickas, 739 N.E.2d at 382.

                                       15
                                                                      No.    2020AP1943

Pittington pleaded guilty to reckless conduct after shooting a

man named Harrison.            Id. at 414.          Harrison's estate filed a

negligence         action    against    Pittington.          Id.      The    insurer,

Metropolitan, filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that

any damages stemming from the shooting were not covered.                       Id. at

415.

       ¶37    The     court     addressed        the   preclusive       effect      of

Pittington's guilty plea in light of the policy language that

excluded from coverage injuries that were "in fact expected,

anticipated or intended."              Id. at 418.     In concluding that there

was no preclusive effect, the court observed that "[i]n pleading

guilty to reckless conduct, Pittington admitted he performed an

act that caused the harm or endangered the safety of Harrison

with 'conscious disregard' of a substantial and unjustifiable

risk."       Id.     However, such a plea was "in no way an admission

that he expected, anticipated or intended to cause bodily harm

to Harrington."         Id.     Although the Pittington court focused on

the nature of a plea, and not a finding by a jury as was the
situation in the present case, this distinction is immaterial

for our purposes.

       ¶38    Zuk and Pittington are both factually and analytically

analogous to the present case, and we find the approaches of

those    courts        persuasive.              Additionally,      several      other

jurisdictions         that    have     "considered     the    issue     of    whether

reckless conduct bars indemnification under similar insurance

policies . . . have found coverage when the insured's conduct is
reckless."          Royal Indem. Co. v. Love, 630 N.Y.S.2d 652, 654
                                           16
                                                                                     No.     2020AP1943

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995); see, e.g., Vappi & Co. v. Aetna Cas. &

Sur.    Co.,    204        N.E.2d     273,       276    (Mass.       1965)      ("Unintended            or

unforeseen consequences of reckless or negligent acts . . . may

be within the definition of 'accident.'"); White v. Smith, 440

S.W.2d 497, 507 (Mo. Ct. App. 1969) ("But neither policy nor

principle      excludes         from      the     category       of    damages             'caused      by

accident'       for        which     coverage          is     afforded          by     a     liability

insurance       policy,         even       damage       which     might          be,       for     other

purposes,      regard[ed]           as    constructively          intentional               or    damage

resulting from wanton and reckless conduct.").

       ¶39     In    particular,          the     Zuk    court's       statement            that       "[a]

person may engage in behavior that involves a calculated risk

without      expecting——no           less       reasonably——that            an       accident          will

occur" is instructive here.                  Zuk, 574 N.E.2d at 1038.                        The court

continued       to     explain        that       "[s]uch       behavior,             which       may    be

reckless       for         criminal        responsibility             purposes,             does       not

necessarily mean that the actor reasonably expected the accident

to result."          Id.     So it is here.             State Farm provides us with no
authority      compelling           the    conclusion         that     a     reckless            act   can

never   be     an    "accident,"           and    the       analysis       of    the       Zuk    court,

echoed in Pittington, persuasively concludes that the opposite

is true.

       ¶40     Thus,       in   the       context       of    this     case,         the     issue      of

whether      Strand's        conduct       was     an    "accident"          was      not     actually

litigated in the prior criminal proceeding.                                 The jury here was

presented with a question of guilty or not guilty and did not
make a determination of what events actually occurred.                                            It was
                                                  17
                                                                  No.   2020AP1943

not   asked   to   return   a   special    verdict   and   made    no   specific

factual findings aside from finding that the elements of the

crime charged were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.                      Strand

gave inconsistent accounts of the events leading to Haeven's

death.     We do not know if the jury accepted either of his

explanations, or if it rejected both.11

       We acknowledge that the jury in Strand's criminal case
      11

was given an instruction referencing an "accident," but this
fact does not alter our analysis.     Specifically, the circuit
court instructed the jury regarding what it needed to find to
support a guilty verdict on the state-of-mind element of the
reckless homicide offense as follows:

      Second, the defendant caused the death by what is
      called   criminally  reckless   conduct.     Criminally
      reckless conduct is defined as conduct that creates a
      risk of death or great bodily harm to another person,
      and the risk of death or great bodily harm was
      unreasonable and substantial, and that the defendant
      was aware that his conduct created an unreasonable and
      substantial risk of death or great bodily harm.

      The defendant, Mr. Strand, contends that he was not
      aware that his conduct created an unreasonable and
      substantial risk of death or great bodily harm, but
      that what happened was an accident.

      If the defendant did not act with an awareness
      required for this crime, he is not guilty of this
      crime.

     This reference to an "accident" does not affect our
analysis for two reasons. First, the circuit court's reference
to an accident was made in the context of explaining what
Strand's argument was. It did not indicate that "accident" was
inconsistent with recklessness, but only specified that Strand
argued that his conduct was an accident. Second, this reference
does not address the same question as the definition of
"accident" for purposes of insurance coverage as espoused in our
case law, which takes into account an element of foreseeability
of the result of an act.     See Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am.
Girl, Inc., 2004 WI 2, ¶37, 268 Wis. 2d 16, 673 N.W.2d 65.

                                      18
                                                                            No.    2020AP1943

     ¶41     Likewise,        if    the    jury      rejected       both     of     Strand's

explanations, we do not know what alternative explanation it

embraced.        The    jury       additionally        heard       testimony       from    the

State's    expert      that    although        a    fall    can    result     in    a    skull

fracture    as   occurred          in   this    case,      "we    also   know      from    the

literature       from     short         falls . . . that            children        do     not

typically, or the vast majority do not incur any kind of brain

injury from a short fall."                Another expert testified:                "I don't

think hitting the counter and falling from that height would

have resulted in those injuries."

     ¶42     Further, we do not know what act committed by Strand

(if it accepted either of his explanations) was determined by

the jury to be reckless.                  The jury heard testimony both that

Strand dropped Haeven (whether it was from his knee while trying

to burp her or when he turned and hit the kitchen island) and

that he put her to bed without seeking medical attention.                                   It

could     have   concluded         that    the      first    act    (dropping       Haeven,

however it happened) was an accident, but that it was reckless
for Strand to put her directly to bed without first seeking

medical care.       In such a scenario, there would be an "accident"

covered by the State Farm policy.12

     12Nowhere does the dissent claim to know exactly what took
place, nor could it. Its conclusion that Strand's conviction of
a reckless crime precludes an "accident" completely disregards
the possibility that Strand committed two acts, one accidental
and one reckless.    The jury's verdict gives no insight into
whether this was the case, and the dissent reads far too much
into the verdict to reach its conclusion.

                                               19
                                                                                No.    2020AP1943

       ¶43    Additionally,           we   recognize        that     our    conclusion         is

consistent         with    the       reading     of   the     word     "accident"         by    a

reasonable insured.              See Shugarts, 380 Wis. 2d 512, ¶20.                           The

term     is       not   defined       in   the      policy,      but   under          a   common

understanding of "accident,"                   it would seem that even if one

engages in reckless conduct, a resulting injury can still be, in

the common parlance of the word, "accidental."                             See Sheehan v.

Goriansky, 72 N.E.2d 538, 543 (Mass. 1947) (determining that

wanton       or    reckless      conduct,        "which     is     only     constructively

intentional does not, for that reason alone, fall outside the

category of an injury 'caused by accident'" because "[t]o the

ordinary mind such a distinction would be wholly artificial").

       ¶44    For example, if a person is driving 90 miles per hour

on a city street, such conduct would no doubt be reckless, but

that     doesn't        mean     it    isn't     an    "accident"          if     the     driver

unintentionally           hits   a    pedestrian.         Such an event               may still

occur "by chance" or "without one's foresight or expectation."

See Am. Girl, 268 Wis. 2d 16, ¶37; cf. Fetherston v. Parks, 2014
WI App 2, ¶15, 352 Wis. 2d 472, 842 N.W.2d 481 (concluding that

an intentional acts exclusion did not apply to bar coverage

where "Parks did not intend to injure the Fetherstons when he

operated his vehicle in a reckless manner").13

       This
       13     conclusion   is   additionally  supported by   an
illustration included in the comments to the Restatement
(Second) of Judgments.   Specifically, comment f to Restatement
(Second) of Judgments § 85, which addresses the effect of a
criminal judgment in a subsequent civil action, contains the
following example (illustration 10):

                                               20
                                                                    No.     2020AP1943

      ¶45   We therefore conclude that issue preclusion does not

bar   Dostal   from     seeking    insurance         coverage    for   her    claims

against     Strand.       The     issue        of   whether     Strand's     conduct

constituted    an     "accident"   was     not      actually    litigated    in   the

prior criminal proceeding.

                                          B

      ¶46   Having     concluded    that       Dostal's   claim    for     insurance

coverage is not barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion, we

      D inflicts a blow on X as a result of which X dies. D
      is   convicted    of   intentional   homicide.      P,
      administrator of X's estate, brings an action against
      D for wrongful death, alleging D's act was negligent.
      I had previously issued a policy of liability
      insurance to D, insuring liability for D's negligent
      acts but excluding intentional acts.     In P's action
      against D, P is not precluded by the criminal
      conviction from showing that D's act was negligent
      rather than intentional.

     Although the conviction here was for reckless homicide
rather than intentional, the same principle holds. The dissent
incorrectly claims that this illustration says nothing about
insurance recovery. See dissent, ¶68. Indeed, the illustration
states that "P is not precluded by the criminal conviction from
showing that D's act was negligent rather than intentional." If
an act is negligent rather than intentional, it may be a covered
"occurrence" pursuant to the insurance policy referenced earlier
in the illustration.

                                          21
                                                               No.   2020AP1943

turn next to address the resident relative and intentional acts

exclusions in the policy.14

     ¶47       We begin with the resident relative exclusion.             This

exclusion in the policy excludes coverage for "bodily injury to

you or any insured within the meaning of part a. or b. of the

definition of insured."           In turn, the policy defines "insured"

as "you and, if residents of your household:               a. your relatives;

and b. any other person under the age of 21 who is in the care

of a person described above."

     ¶48       Case law sets forth the inquiry for determination of

whether    a    person   is   a   "resident   of    your    household."     "A

determination of residency in a household is fact specific to

each case."        Seichter v. McDonald, 228 Wis. 2d 838, 845, 599

N.W.2d 71 (Ct. App. 1999) (citing Schoer v. West Bend Mut. Ins.

Co., 473 N.W.2d 73, 76 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)).

     ¶49       Such an analysis "requires a thorough examination of

all relevant facts and circumstances."             Londre by Long v. Cont'l

W. Ins. Co., 117 Wis. 2d 54, 57, 343 N.W.2d 128 (Ct. App. 1983).

     14 While our analysis is of course based on the exclusions
that are present in the policy, we observe at the outset that
the State Farm policy does not include an exclusion precluding
coverage for all criminal acts.   Such criminal acts exclusions
are included in some policies.   See West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Ixthus Med. Supply, Inc., 2019 WI 19, ¶38, 385 Wis. 2d 580, 923
N.W.2d 550; L.L. v. Med. Protective Co., 122 Wis. 2d 455, 463,
362 N.W.2d 174 (Ct. App. 1984). If State Farm had included such
a policy exclusion, this case likely would not be before us.
State Farm chose not to include a criminal acts exclusion here,
and is thus left to rely on the exclusions it did write in this
policy.

                                      22
                                                                   No.    2020AP1943

The factfinder must consider whether the person and the named

insured are:

       (1) living under the same roof; (2) in a close,
       intimate and informal relationship, and (3) where the
       intended duration of the relationship is likely to be
       substantial,   where   it  is   consistent   with  the
       informality of the relationship, and from which it is
       reasonable to conclude that the parties would consider
       the relationship in contracting about such matters as
       insurance or in their conduct in reliance thereon.
Id.    at    57-58.      In    conducting     this   analysis,    the    factfinder

additionally considers (1) the age of the person, (2) whether a

separate residence is established, (3) the self-sufficiency of

the person, (4) the frequency and duration of the stay in the

family home, and (5) intent to return.                 Seichter, 228 Wis. 2d at

845.    "Personal possessions remaining in the home and that the

home continues to be the mailing address may be considered but

are not dispositive."           Id. (citing Schoer, 473 N.W.2d at 76).

       ¶50    State   Farm       contends     that     the   resident      relative

exclusion applies to bar coverage here.                  In State Farm's view,

Haeven was a "resident" of Strand's household as a matter of

law.        It points to facts in the record indicating that the

paternity court had ordered Strand "frequent" physical placement

of Haeven, that Strand physically cared for Haeven, and that

Strand intended the duration of his relationship with Haeven to

be substantial such that he would consider her when contracting

about insurance.

       ¶51    However,        contrary   to    State     Farm's    argument,     an
examination of Dostal's deposition in this case indicates that

                                         23
                                                                    No.    2020AP1943

Haeven's    "residency"    with   Strand      is   disputed.        According      to

Dostal's    deposition     testimony,     Strand    only     cared    for     Haeven

without Dostal present four times, a count which includes two

overnight stays.        Dostal further testified that there was no

formal schedule for placement and that Strand "was usually too

busy or didn't have time for the baby or didn't want her over

there."     Given this testimony, we cannot conclude that Haeven

was a resident relative of Strand as a matter of law.

    ¶52     The     determination   of     whether     one     is     a     resident

relative for insurance purposes is highly fact specific.                          Id.

Here,     the   parties'   submissions        demonstrate     that        there   are

genuine issues of material fact as to the question of whether

Haeven was a resident relative of Strand.               Accordingly, summary

judgment is inappropriate on this issue.

    ¶53     We turn next to the intentional acts exclusion in the

policy, which sets forth that the coverage does not apply to

"bodily injury or property damage . . . which is either expected

or intended by the insured."
    ¶54     For purposes of an intentional acts exclusion, intent

to injure may be inferred where injury is substantially certain

to result from an insured's intentional conduct.                          K.A.G. by

Carson v. Stanford, 148 Wis. 2d 158, 163, 434 N.W.2d 790 (Ct.

App. 1988).       If the conduct is intentional and if the conduct is

substantially certain to cause injury, we can infer intent to

injure only "if the degree of certainty that the conduct will

cause injury is sufficiently great to justify inferring intent
to injure as a matter of law."          Id.
                                     24
                                                                          No.    2020AP1943

      ¶55     We    cannot,     however,       "infer   intent       to    injure      as   a

matter   of    law    merely      because      the   insured's        intentional         act

violated      the    criminal      law."         Loveridge       v.       Chartier,       161

Wis. 2d 150, 171, 468 N.W.2d 146 (1991).                  Conviction of a crime

gives rise to an inference that an insured intended injury as a

matter of law in two circumstances only:                            (1) if intent to

injure is an element of the crime, and (2) if the crime in

question involves the insured committing an intentional act that

carries with it a substantial risk of injury or death.                              Id. at

172 (citing Poston v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 107 Wis. 2d 215,

219, 320 N.W.2d 9 (Ct. App. 1982); Raby v. Moe, 153 Wis. 2d 101,

114, 450 N.W.2d 452 (1990)).

      ¶56     Intent is plainly not an element of a reckless crime.

See   Wis.     Stat.        §§ 939.24(1),        940.06(1).            Thus,      if      the

intentional acts exclusion is to apply, the crime must involve

the   insured       committing      an    intentional         act     that      carries     a

substantial        risk   of   injury     or   death.     As     analyzed        above,     a

determination        that      Strand's    conduct      was     reckless        does      not
preclude a finding that his conduct was an accident for purposes

of insurance coverage.            If his conduct was indeed an "accident,"

such a determination would compel the additional conclusion that

his conduct was surely not "intentional" so as to indicate that

the exclusion applies.

      ¶57     There are therefore genuine issues of material fact

regarding whether Strand's conduct was "intentional" such that

the intentional acts exclusion applies.                       Accordingly, summary
judgment is inappropriate on this issue.
                                            25
                                                                   No.     2020AP1943

                                        IV

      ¶58    In sum, we conclude that issue preclusion does not bar

Dostal from seeking insurance coverage for her claims against

Strand.      The issue of whether Strand's conduct constituted an

"accident"    was    not    actually   litigated     in   the     prior    criminal

proceeding.        Further, we conclude that there are genuine issues

of   material      fact    regarding   the    application    of    the     resident

relative     and    intentional    acts      exclusions    such    that     summary

judgment is inappropriate.

      ¶59    Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of

appeals and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

      By    the    Court.—The   decision      of   the   court    of     appeals   is

reversed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court.

                                        26
                                                           No.   2020AP1943.akz

    ¶60    ANNETTE    KINGSLAND    ZIEGLER,    C.J.      (dissenting).       I

dissent because 12 jurors at Strand's criminal trial unanimously

decided beyond a reasonable doubt that Haeven's death was not an

"accident,"   and    this    precludes    relitigating      the     issue   of

Strand's coverage.     Because the jury's verdict is controlling in

this case and cannot be relitigated, that ends the analysis as

to Strand——he has no coverage under his policy with State Farm,

which grants coverage for bodily injury caused by an "accident."

Since Strand has no claim against State Farm, as his causing

Haeven's death was beyond a reasonable doubt not an accident,

Dostal is also precluded from making a claim against State Farm

under Strand's policy.       Dostal has no independent claim against

State Farm, and she cannot recover under Strand's policy any

more than Strand could.

    ¶61    Strand's conviction for his act of reckless homicide,

killing his own child Haeven, precludes Strand from claiming

that Haeven's death was an accident.          In other words, because 12
jurors concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Strand's actions

caused   Haeven's    death   and   that   Strand   was    "aware"    that   he

"create[d] an unreasonable and substantial risk" of her death,

Wis. Stat. § 939.24(1), Haeven's death was not an unforeseen

"accident" under Strand's insurance policy, and he is precluded

from claiming coverage.        As a result, because Strand has no

insurance coverage, Dostal cannot claim that he does.

    ¶62    Dostal attempts to circumvent this determination that
Strand's conduct was not an accident by suing State Farm under

                                     1
                                                                       No.       2020AP1943.akz

Wisconsin's direct action statute, Wis. Stat. § 632.24 (2021-

22).1       However, if Strand has no claim——which he does not because

his conviction for second-degree reckless homicide determined

beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not an "accident"——then

Dostal can have no claim direct or otherwise against State Farm

under       Strand's      policy.      While       she   may   have    a    claim      against

Strand for his criminally reckless killing of Haeven, this is

not     a   risk    for    which      Strand    purchased      insurance.             Strand's

insurance contract does not provide Dostal with more coverage

than it would provide its own insured.                         The circuit court and

court of appeals therefore correctly concluded that State Farm

was entitled to summary judgment and declaratory judgment on the

issue of coverage.

        ¶63    The majority contorts its analysis in order to reach a

result of coverage in this very sad and unfortunate case.                                    It

ignores the facts of this case and the law of our state, instead

reaching out to foreign authorities to create insurance that was

never provided by contract.                    As we have interpreted the term
"accident"         in   insurance      contracts,        Strand's     act       of    "criminal

recklessness" cannot be an "accident" under his insurance policy

with State Farm because Strand was "aware" that he created an

"unreasonable and substantial" risk of Haeven's death.                                    Wis.

Stat. § 939.24(1).              Strand's prior conviction for second-degree

reckless homicide therefore precludes him from asserting that

Haeven's       death      was    an    "accident"        for   which       he    is    granted

       All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-
        1

22 version unless otherwise indicated.

                                               2
                                                             No.    2020AP1943.akz

coverage.    The majority mistakenly frames the issue as whether

issue preclusion binds Dostal when the issue is actually whether

it binds Strand.      Because Strand has no claim against State Farm

and cannot relitigate that issue, Dostal has no claim either.

    ¶64     The issue of whether Strand's killing of Haeven was an

"accident" was fully litigated and unanimously decided beyond a

reasonable   doubt    in   Strand's   criminal      trial,    and    precluding

Strand from relitigating that issue comports with fundamental

fairness.     Issue    preclusion     therefore     prevents       Strand    from

asserting he has coverage under his policy with State Farm for

recklessly killing his own daughter, and Dostal cannot create

coverage that does not otherwise exist by suing State Farm under

the direct action statute.       I dissent.

                                      I

    ¶65     Strand    seeks    relitigation    of     this    issue      through

Dostal's suit under Wisconsin's direct action statute.                  However,

Dostal cannot recover on Strand's policy with State Farm because

Strand has no coverage as a matter of law.              Wisconsin's direct
action statute permits Dostal to sue State Farm directly as

opposed to first suing Strand and then Strand filing a claim.

Dostal can only recover what Strand would be able to by filing a

claim——in this case, nothing.

    ¶66     Dostal   brought    her   claim   against    State      Farm    under

Wisconsin's direct action statute:

    Any bond or policy of insurance covering liability to
    others for negligence makes the insurer liable, up to
    the amounts stated in the bond or policy, to the
    persons entitled to recover against the insured for
    the death of any person or for injury to persons or

                                      3
                                                                              No.    2020AP1943.akz

       property, irrespective of whether the liability is
       presently established or is contingent and to become
       fixed or certain by final judgment against the
       insured.
Wis.    Stat.    § 632.24.           "The       direct          action    statute         generally

endeavors to save litigation and reduce expense by determining

the    rights    of    all   parties        in       a    single      action    involving         the

insurance carrier . . . ."                Hull v. Glewwe, 2019 WI App 27, ¶38,

388     Wis. 2d 90,       931   N.W.2d           266       (citing       Est.       of    Otto     v.

Physicians       Ins.    Co.    of    Wis.,              2008    WI     78,    ¶36       n.21,    311

Wis. 2d 84, 751 N.W.2d 805).                    In cases under the direct action

statute, the plaintiff "steps into the shoes of the tortfeasor

and can assert any right of the tortfeasor against the insurer."

7A Couch on Insurance § 104:13 (3d ed. 2022) (emphasis added).

Accordingly, "the liability to which the insurer is exposed is

predicated upon the liability of the insured."                                       Kranzush v.

Badger St. Mut. Cas. Co., 103 Wis. 2d 56, 75, 307 N.W.2d 256

(1981).       In other words, a plaintiff bringing a direct action

cannot       recover     against      a     tortfeasor's                insurer      unless       the

tortfeasor would himself be able to recover.
       ¶67     The implication for this case is that Dostal steps

into    Strand's       shoes.        Having          no     claim       against      State       Farm

independent from Strand and his policy, Dostal can recover from

State Farm only if Strand could do so.                            Therefore, the question

in this case is not whether Dostal is precluded from claiming

there    was    an     accident.          The    question          is    whether         Strand    is

precluded       from    doing   so.         Because             issue    preclusion         applies

against Strand, Strand has no coverage for Dostal to claim.

                                                 4
                                                                    No.    2020AP1943.akz

      ¶68    This conclusion does not prevent Dostal from bringing

a claim against Strand and holding him personally liable for

Haeven's      death.          It    merely       prevents     Strand       from    being

indemnified by his insurer for his criminally reckless acts.

This distinction is clearly lost on the majority.                         The majority

cites an example in the Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 85

comment f as support.              Majority op., ¶44 n.13.                That example

only says that a plaintiff in Dostal's position would not be

precluded from bringing a claim against the tortfeasor, limiting

the      discussion      to        "[plaintiff's]       action       against        [the

tortfeasor]."        Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 85 cmt. f.

It says nothing about whether the tortfeasor would be able to

recover under his insurance policy.

      ¶69    Surely Dostal can still sue Strand and recover against

him personally, but that does not mean Strand——and, through the

direct action statute, Dostal——is entitled to payment by State

Farm.     Strand has no coverage under his policy with State Farm

for his criminally reckless acts.                 Dostal cannot create coverage
that would not otherwise exist simply by suing under the direct

action      statute.         The   majority's       failure    to     recognize      the

importance of the direct action statute leads the majority to

start off its analysis on the wrong foot.

                                          II

      ¶70    Strand's criminal trial conclusively determined that

Haeven's     death     was   not    an   "accident."        Twelve        jurors   heard

evidence and argument regarding the circumstances surrounding
Haeven's death.         Strand argued that he was not "aware" that he

                                             5
                                                                         No.   2020AP1943.akz

"create[d] an unreasonable and substantial risk of [Haeven's]

death,       but    instead       that      her        death     was     an    "accident."

Relitigation        of    this    issue     is       therefore    precluded.         Whether

Strand caused Haeven's death by "accident" was decided before a

jury——under the high standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"

rather    that      the   lower     civil      "preponderance          of   the    evidence"

standard——and 12 jurors unanimously decided to reject Strand's

defense.        Thus, the first requirement for issue preclusion to

apply is satisfied because the issue of whether Strand's killing

of     Haeven      was    an     "accident"          was     "actually      litigated    and

determined" by the jury in his criminal trial.                           Aldrich v. LIRC,

2012 WI 53, ¶97, 341 Wis. 2d 36, 814 N.W.2d 433 (quoting Est. of

Rille v. Physicians Ins. Co., 2007 WI 36, ¶37, 300 Wis. 2d 1,

728 N.W.2d 693).

       ¶71    A jury of 12 unanimously found Strand guilty, beyond a

reasonable doubt, of second-degree reckless homicide contrary to

Wis.    Stat.      § 940.06(1).           As     the       majority    correctly      notes,

"criminal recklessness" is defined by statute to mean "that the
actor creates an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or

great bodily harm to another human being and the actor is aware

of that risk."            Wis. Stat. § 939.24(1) (emphasis added).                        In

contrast, mere "criminal negligence" is defined as "conduct that

the actor should realize creates a substantial and unreasonable

risk of death or great bodily harm to another."                                   Wis. Stat.

§ 939.25(1)         (emphasis       added).                The   defining      feature    of

recklessness making it a higher degree of culpability is the
actor's actual awareness of the risk.

                                                 6
                                                                 No.    2020AP1943.akz

      ¶72   However,        the    majority's   analysis    of    our     state    law

stops there.        Notably absent from the majority's analysis is any

recognition of the fact that we have previously interpreted the

terms "occurrence" and "accident" as used in insurance policies.

We have said that an "accident" is "an event which takes place

without     one's    foresight       or   expectation.        [An      undesirable]

result, though unexpected, is not an accident; the means or

cause must be accidental."             Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Girl,

Inc., 2004 WI 2, ¶37, 268 Wis. 2d 16, 673 N.W.2d 65 (emphasis

added) (quoting Accident, Black's Law Dictionary 15 (7th ed.

1999)).     For a particular action to qualify as an "accident,"

the resulting injury must have been "unexpected" or "unforeseen"

from the standpoint of the insured.                Schinner v. Gundrum, 2013

WI 71, ¶71, 349 Wis. 2d 529, 833 N.W.2d 685 (holding injuries

resulting from providing alcohol to underage persons were not

accidents).

      ¶73   The      jury    in     Strand's    criminal     trial      unanimously

concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Strand was aware that
his   actions     created     an    unreasonable   and     substantial      risk    to

Haeven.      The     jury    concluded    beyond   a   reasonable        doubt    that

Strand was "aware of that risk."                Wis. Stat. § 939.24(1).             If

the risk of Haeven's death were unexpected or unforeseen to

Strand, such a finding would not be possible.                       This is clear

from the circuit court's instructions to the jury:

           The defendant, Mr. Strand, contends that he was
      not aware that his conduct created an unreasonable and
      substantial risk of death or great bodily harm, but
      that what happened was an accident.

                                          7
                                                                       No.       2020AP1943.akz

            If the defendant did not act with an awareness
       required for this crime, he is not guilty of this
       crime.
(Emphasis added.)

       ¶74    The majority dismisses the circuit court's use of the

term     "accident"       because      it    "was     made      in     the       context       of

explaining what Strand's argument was" and "did not indicate

that 'accident' was inconsistent with recklessness."                                   Majority

op., ¶40 n.11.           In other words, the majority reads the circuit

court's      use    of     the    term       "accident"         as     consistent            with

"recklessness."           This    is    a   tortured      reading          of   the     circuit

court's instruction.              If an accident were consistent with a

criminally     reckless      act,      Strand's     argument         that       he    committed

only an accident would be akin to an admission of guilt.                                      The

circuit court obviously used the term "accident" understanding

that reckless conduct is not accidental.

       ¶75    The majority also argues the circuit court's use of

"accident" while instructing the jury "does not address the same

question      as    the    definition       of     'accident'         for       purposes       of

insurance coverage as espoused in our case law, which takes into

account an element of foreseeability of the result of an act."

Majority op., ¶40 n.11.             This entirely ignores what the circuit

court was explaining when it used the term "accident."                                        The

court was instructing the jury that a guilty verdict required

finding      that   Strand    was      "aware      that   his    conduct          created      an

unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm"

(emphasis      added)——that         is,      the     harm       had        to        have    been
foreseeable.        The circuit court used the term "accident" in a

manner    consistent       with     our     precedent     and        the    term's          common
                                              8
                                                                            No.     2020AP1943.akz

understanding,            and    the    jury    found,        unanimously      and     beyond   a

reasonable doubt, that Haeven's death was not an accident.

       ¶76     As     the       terms     are     defined        in     our     statutes      and

precedent,          the     definitions         of      "criminal       recklessness"          and

"accident" are inconsistent with each other.                               The circuit court

understood          this        and    instructed        the     jury       accordingly,        as

Wisconsin courts have done before.                           See, e.g., Wis. JI—Criminal

772 (2005) (instruction on "accident" defense); State v. Grant,

No.    2010AP2272-CR,            unpublished          slip    op.,    ¶11     (Wis.    Ct.    App.

Sept. 3, 2011) (per curiam) ("A defendant on trial for a crime

involving reckless conduct may offer the defense of accident to

defeat the mental state of awareness of risk necessary to prove

guilt.").           In     finding       Strand       guilty     of    recklessly        killing

Haeven, the jury explicitly rejected the possibility that her

death was an "accident."                      Strand's prior criminal proceeding

therefore resolved the issue of whether there was an accident,

and    this        determination          "was        essential       to      the     judgment,"

satisfying the first requirement of issue preclusion.2                                  Aldrich,
341 Wis. 2d 36, ¶97.

       ¶77     The        majority       nonetheless           concludes       the     jury     in

Strand's criminal trial did not determine whether Haeven's death

was an accident, making no attempt whatsoever to resolve this

case       under    Wisconsin          law.      Instead,       the    majority        summarily

       The majority criticizes my analysis because I do not
       2

"claim to know exactly what took place" when Haeven died.
Majority op., ¶42, n.12.    The majority misses the point. The
jury at Strand's criminal trial determined beyond a reasonable
doubt that Strand's actions causing Haeven's death were not an
accident regardless of what those actions were.

                                                  9
                                                                                 No.    2020AP1943.akz

concludes,         "we   observe          that    there        is    no   Wisconsin           case   law

directly on point.                   Thus, we may look to case law of other

states       for    guidance."                 Majority       op.,     ¶31.            None    of    the

authorities        the    majority            identifies        make      its    conclusion          more

persuasive.

       ¶78    Instead         of     turning       to     Wisconsin        law,        the    majority

first    looks      to    the       New    York       Court     of     Appeals'         decision       in

Allstate      Insurance         Co.       v.    Zuk,     574    N.E.2d 1035            (N.Y.    1991).

Majority op., ¶32.                 The majority finds the following statement

from    Zuk    particularly              persuasive:           "A    person       may     engage      in

behavior that involves a calculated risk without expecting——no

less reasonably——that an accident will occur.                                     Such behavior,

which may be reckless for criminal responsibility purposes, does

not    necessarily        mean          that    the     actor       reasonably         expected      the

accident to result."                    Zuk, 574 N.E.2d at 1038; majority op.,

¶35.     The majority also relies on a similar holding by Illinois'

intermediate appellate court in Metropolitan Property & Casualty

Insurance      Co.       v.    Pittington,            841     N.E.2d 413         (Ill.        App.   Ct.
2005);       majority         op.,       ¶36.         That     court       concluded          that    an

admission of criminal recklessness was "in no way an admission

that     he    expected,           anticipated           or     intended         to     cause"       the

resulting harm.           Pittington, 841 N.E.2d at 418.

       ¶79    This explanation is quite transparently nonsensical.

The jury found that Strand caused Haeven's death while "aware"

that he "create[d] an unreasonable and substantial risk" of her

"death or great bodily harm."                           Wis. Stat. § 939.24(1).                      The
majority      concludes            it    is     somehow        possible         that     Strand      was

                                                   10
                                                                 No.    2020AP1943.akz

"aware" that he "create[d] an unreasonable and substantial risk"

of Haeven's death but "reasonably" did not expect it.                         Id.   The

jury at Strand's criminal trial concluded Strand was aware he

created a risk to Haeven that was "unreasonable."                       The majority

offers no explanation as to how——under Wisconsin law——the jury

could have found that Strand was both aware of, but reasonably

did not expect, an unreasonable risk.                      The jury's unanimous

finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Strand was "criminally

reckless" means that Strand was aware of and therefore expected

the risk he created, and he unreasonably disregarded that risk.

      ¶80    Furthermore,         the    majority's        reliance     on     foreign

authorities treats this issue as if it were settled.                           That is

not the case.        Several courts in other jurisdictions have come

out on the opposite side, concluding that reckless conduct is

not accidental.        See, e.g., Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mutrie, 105

A.3d 595,     599    (N.H.       2014)   ("[W]e       conclude   that     because    a

reasonable person in Mutrie's position would know that some harm

would   result      from   her    alleged       knowing,   reckless,     and    wanton
support and facilitation of her son's criminal drug activity,

Mutrie's     conduct       was    inherently      injurious,     and,     therefore,

cannot be considered accidental.                  Therefore, her conduct does

not   constitute      an    'occurrence'         as   is   necessary     to    trigger

coverage."); Russ v. Great Am. Ins. Cos., 464 S.E.2d 723, 726

(N.C. Ct. App. 1995) (holding "a showing that the defendant

acted with 'reckless indifference to the likelihood' that his or

her   acts   'will     cause      severe    emotional       distress'"        precluded
coverage); Jim Barna Log Sys. Midwest, Inc. v. Gen. Cas. Ins.

                                           11
                                                                              No.     2020AP1943.akz

Co.   of    Wis.,        791    N.E.2d 816,            830     (Ind.         Ct.      App.      2003)

(concluding        a    claim       requiring          proof      of     "knowledgeable           or

reckless conduct" "does not arise from an 'accident' and, thus,

is not the result of an 'occurrence'"); Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v.

Terrace Enters., Inc., 260 N.W.2d 450, 452 (Minn. 1977) (quoted

source     omitted)      ("If       the       single    insured         is    allowed        through

intentional or reckless acts to consciously control the risks

covered     by    the    policy,          a    central       concept         of     insurance      is

violated.").

      ¶81    As a matter of fact, following the Appellate Court of

Illinois'        decision      in    Pittington,            upon        which       the    majority

relies, that court has since declined to follow Pittington.                                        In

Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Hieber, 24 N.E.3d 139, 144 (Ill. Ct.

App. 2014), the Appellate Court of Illinois concluded that an

insured's conviction for criminally reckless conduct precluded

the insured from later arguing the resulting bodily injury was

not   "reasonably        []     expected."             In    so     holding,          that      court

rejected     the       dissent's      argument         which       "draws         a   distinction
between an injury resulting from criminally reckless conduct and

one   'expected'         by    the    insured,"          id.       at     144-45,         the    same

reasoning the majority relies upon in this case.3

      3Though the majority disputes the degree to which Allstate
Indemnity Co. v. Hieber, 24 N.E.3d 139 (Ill. Ct. App. 2014),
actually   departed  from   Metropolitan  Property   &  Casualty
Insurance Co. v. Pittington, 841 N.E.2d 413 (Ill. App. Ct.
2005), it nonetheless fails to contend with the more important
fact that Allstate Indemnity Co. repudiates the majority's
reasoning. See majority op., ¶36 n.10.

                                                 12
                                                                No.    2020AP1943.akz

       ¶82    The majority's reliance on foreign authorities without

any    real   analysis    is   a    clear       attempt   to   avoid    the    result

compelled under Wisconsin law:              the jury's unanimous conclusion

beyond a reasonable doubt that Strand recklessly caused Haeven's

death precludes a finding that there was an "accident" under his

insurance policy.         Neither logic nor legal authority supports

the majority's holding.

                                          III

       ¶83    Strand has no coverage under his policy with State

Farm    for   his    criminally    reckless       conduct.     The     jury    in   his

criminal trial concluded this beyond a reasonable doubt, and it

"comports with principles of fundamental fairness" to prevent

Strand from relitigating this issue.                 Aldrich, 341 Wis. 2d 36,

¶98.    Both requirements of issue preclusion are therefore met,

and Strand cannot relitigate whether he has coverage for killing

his daughter under his policy with State Farm.                    Because Strand

has no claim against State Farm under his policy, neither does

Dostal.
       ¶84    Issue preclusion requires consideration of fundamental

fairness      because    the      doctrine       binds    nonparties     to     prior

litigation.         See Kruckenberg v. Harvey, 2005 WI 43, ¶57, 279

Wis. 2d 520, 694 N.W.2d 879 (explaining the difference between

issue     preclusion     and      claim    preclusion).          In     this    case,

fundamental fairness is not a concern because Strand's criminal

trial is not binding any nonparties to that trial.                            It only

binds Strand by precluding him from claiming that his criminally

                                          13
                                                                     No.   2020AP1943.akz

reckless act was a covered "accident" absolving him of liability

to Dostal.

      ¶85    Established factors for assessing fundamental fairness

weigh in favor of precluding Strand from claiming Haeven's death

was an "accident."

      Courts may consider some or all of the following
      factors to protect the rights of all parties to a full
      and fair adjudication of all issues involved in the
      action: (1) could the party against whom preclusion
      is sought, as a matter of law, have obtained review of
      the judgment; (2) is the question one of law that
      involves two distinct claims or intervening contextual
      shifts in the law; (3) do significant differences in
      the quality or extensiveness of proceedings between
      the two courts warrant relitigation of the issue; (4)
      have the burdens of persuasion shifted such that the
      party seeking preclusion had a lower burden of
      persuasion in the first trial than in the second; or
      (5) are matters of public policy and individual
      circumstances   involved   that   would   render   the
      application of collateral estoppel to be fundamentally
      unfair, including inadequate opportunity or incentive
      to obtain a full and fair adjudication in the initial
      action?
Paige      K.B.    v.   Steven     G.B.,       226    Wis. 2d 210,         220-21,   594

N.W.2d 370        (1999)      (quoting     Michelle       T.    v.     Crozier,      173

Wis. 2d 681, 688-89, 495 N.W.2d 327 (1993)).                    Strand was a party

to   his    own    criminal    trial     and    had    plenty   of    opportunity     to

litigate     the    issue,     including       the    opportunity     to    appeal   the

judgment against him.            There is no evidence that Strand's trial

was inadequate in any particular way.                    The jury found beyond a

reasonable doubt——a higher standard than the "preponderance of

the evidence" standard Strand would have to satisfy in a claim

against     his     insurer——that        Strand       recklessly     killed     Haeven.

                                           14
                                                                          No.    2020AP1943.akz

Finally, Strand had plenty opportunity and incentive to fully

litigate his case and avoid criminal penalty.

    ¶86        The fundamental fairness factors therefore weigh in

favor    of    precluding          Strand    from    relitigating           the     issue   of

whether       his    actions       were     accidental      rather        than    criminally

reckless.       If Strand were to file a claim under his policy with

State Farm, he would be precluded from asserting that Haeven's

death was an "accident" and receive no coverage.                                 Through the

direct     action       statute,       Dostal       steps    into     Strand's         shoes.

Because Strand cannot recover under his own policy with State

Farm, neither can Dostal.

                                              IV

    ¶87        The     jury    in     Strand's      criminal        trial       conclusively

determined,          beyond    a     reasonable      doubt,        that     Strand     caused

Haeven's death and that he was "aware" that his actions created

a "unreasonable and substantial" risk of her death.                               Wis. Stat.

§ 939.25(1).          The jury's verdict foreclosed Strand from later

arguing that Haeven's death was an "accident."                             Because Strand
has no coverage under State Farm's policy, Dostal cannot recover

against State Farm either.

    ¶88        The    majority       avoids     this   inevitable           conclusion      by

ignoring the law of our state and blindly relying on foreign

authorities.           It makes no effort to scrutinize the cases it

cites and summarily labels them "persuasive."                         As a result, the

majority      interprets       Strand's       homeowner's      insurance           policy   as

providing           "Reckless         Homicide         Insurance,"              indemnifying
policyholders           for        their     decisions        to      disregard         known

                                              15
                                                       No.   2020AP1943.akz

"unreasonable and substantial risk[s] of death or great bodily

harm."    Wis. Stat. § 939.25(1).    This is absurd.

    ¶89    For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

    ¶90    I am authorized to state that Justices PATIENCE DRAKE

ROGGENSACK and REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY join this dissent.

                                    16
    No.   2020AP1943.akz

1