Court Opinion

ID: 9674329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:26:50.71371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:26.992913
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
¶ 68. {concurring). I agree with the majority that the misrepresentations in *528this case were not occurrences within the meaning of the American Family CGL policy. Majority op., ¶ 4. Accordingly, I agree that the policy here does not provide coverage. Id. Likewise, I agree that the property damage falls under the "your work" exclusion of the policy. Id., ¶ 64. I also agree with the majority that the holding today does not address the question of whether an "occurrence" could involve an accidental misrepresentation in a future case. Id., ¶ 46 n. 17.1 therefore join the majority opinion.
¶ 69. I write separately, however, to address the discussion in section III A of the majority opinion and to respond to the concurrence of Justice Roggensack.
¶ 70. The majority concludes in its discussion in section III A that "misrepresentations volitionally made" cannot constitute an occurrence within the meaning of a CGL policy. Id., ¶ 45. To the extent that the discussion in III A stands for the proposition that a volitional misrepresentation is synonymous with an intentional misrepresentation, and that damages resulting from volitional (i.e., intentional) misrepresentations are not covered by the CGL policy here, I am in complete accord.
¶ 71. To the extent that the discussion set forth in ¶¶ 39-44 of section III A suggests otherwise, I would not join that part of the discussion. I believe that "accident" should be construed as understood by the reasonable insured and, following the majority of jurisdictions, the determination should be based on whether the injury or damages are unexpected and unintentional.1
*529¶ 72. I turn next to address the interpretation of accident in Justice Roggensack's concurrence. The concurrence argues that the majority misreads Everson v. Lorenz, 2005 WI 51, 280 Wis. 2d 1, 695 N.W.2d 298. It attacks the majority's interpretation of the conclusion in Everson: "[I]n interpreting Everson, the majority asserts that we concluded that a false assertion requires a degree of volition inconsistent with the term accident." Justice Roggensack's concurrence, ¶ 99 (internal quotes and cites omitted).
¶ 73. The concurrence advances that the majority misapprehends what was intended by Everson. Id. It takes the majority to task for concluding that "under Everson it is only the false assertion that must be volitional." Id.
¶ 74. I submit that it is the majority that correctly interprets Everson and that it is the concurrence that misapprehends Everson's intent. The concurrence appears to interpret Everson as determining that any time there is a volitional act involved in causing damages— including the mere act of speaking — no accident has occurred.2 Id.
*530¶ 75. By implying that accidents involve only circumstances in which there are no volitional acts of any sort, the concurrence appears to not only misinterpret Everson, but also contradicts our prior cases. In Doyle v. Engelke, 219 Wis. 2d 277, 580 N.W.2d 245 (1998), the plaintiff alleged that the insured had negligently supervised two of its employees. She argued that the employees had intentionally filed a false security agreement that encumbered Doyle's assets and served a false subpoena at her residence, causing emotional injury to Doyle. Id. at 282.
¶ 76. The employer carried an insurance policy that covered an "event," and which defined "event" as the CGL policy in this case defines "occurrence," that is, as an accident. Id. at 289. We determined that there was coverage because a reasonable insured would expect negligent acts, including the negligent supervision of employees' intentional acts, to constitute accidents. Accordingly, we concluded the policy covered the allegations in the case as an accident, and therefore as an event. Id. at 290.
¶ 77. The concurrence's analysis would appear to preclude coverage in Doyle. We were explicit that the employees' acts were intentional. Nonetheless, it was an *531accident covered under the policy because the harm to Doyle was "an unexpected, undesirable event or an unforeseen incident. . . characterized by a lack of intention." Id. at 289 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
¶ 78. The concurrence's view would also appear to conflict with Westfield Ins. Co. v. J.C. Penney Corp., Inc., in which a federal court interpreted Wisconsin law in addressing whether there was an accident for the purpose of insurance coverage. 458 F. Supp. 2d 953 (W.D. Wis., 2006). Westfield involved allegations that the negligent design and manufacture of a lamp and lamp cord were substantial factors in causing a fire. Id. at 956-57. Although the Western District of Wisconsin determined that there was an accident for the purposes of insurance coverage, it would seem that designing and manufacturing products are volitional acts, and were a cause of the damage. Would the concurrence's view preclude coverage in that case?
¶ 79. Similarly, the test set forth for determining whether there is an accident may conflict with Kalchthaler v. Keller Const. Co., 224 Wis. 2d 387, 591 N.W.2d 169 (Ct. App. 1999). That case involved damage to a building caused by negligent construction. Id. at 392 n.2. The court of appeals determined that the damage was an accident for the purposes of insurance coverage. Id. at 397. Was the cause of the damage intentional insofar as the construction was intended? Does the interpretation of accident in the concurrence suggest that the Kalchthaler court erred?
¶ 80. I agree with the majority's conclusion that there is no accident here. As I see it, this is not a case of negligence. Rather, it is a case in which the misrepresentation was intended.
¶ 81. Accordingly, I respectfully concur.
*532¶ 82. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON joins this concurrence.

 In the context of negligent misrepresentation, the presence of a volitional act by itself does not preclude an action from *530being an accident. See H. Brent Brennenstuhl, Negligent Misrepresentation as "Accident" or "Occurrence" Warranting Insurance Coverage, 58 A.L.R.5th 483 (1998). Courts have generally determined whether negligent misrepresentation may be an accident for the purposes of insurance coverage based upon whether the insured intended to make a misrepresentation, id., § 3[a], whether the insured intended to cause injury, id., § 3[b], or whether the injury was foreseeable, id., §§ 3[c] and 4[c]. Those jurisdictions considering intent to induce reliance as precluding negligent misrepresentation from being an accident have generally done so on the basis that misrepresentation claims are akin to fraud. Id., §§ 4[a] and 4[b].