§ 5.2 Expected or Intended Injury Exclusion
The standard CGL policy includes an "expected or intended injury" exclusion that, by its terms, excludes coverage for bodily injury and property damage that is expected or intended. Specifically, the standard exclusion provides:
a. Expected Or Intended Injury
"Bodily injury" or "property damage" expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured. This exclusion does not apply to "bodily injury" resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property.
South Carolina courts have applied the "expected or intended damage" exclusion through the lens of intentional damage, not expected damage.3 The Supreme Court of South Carolina addressed the application of this exclusion in Vermont Mutual Insurance Company v. Singleton4 The homeowner's policy provided coverage for bodily injury that was caused by the activities of the insured and also included an exclusion that provided that coverage was not afforded for "bodily injury...which is expected or intended by the insured." The claimant contended he was entitled to recover damages from the insured because he was injured during a fistfight between him and the insured. The special referee determined that the insured was entitled to both a defense and indemnification under the policy.
On appeal, the Court affirmed the special referee's determination. In affirming the decision, the Court explained that this exclusion was commonly referred to as the "intentional acts exclusion."5 The Court stated that it was required to undergo a two-prong analysis with regard to the potential application of the exclusion. With regard to the first prong, the Court explained "[t]he intentional act or first prong requires that the insured actually intended to strike the other party" and that based on the facts in the record, the overall circumstances were hostile.6 Further, the Court explained that it was axiomatic that even if the insured acted in self-defense, such action was still intentional.7 Therefore, the Court determined that the first prong of the test had been satisfied.
The Court explained the second prong of the test required determining "whether the intentional act was done for an intentional result."8 In this case, the Court explained the record contained evidence that the underlying plaintiff participated in some sort of provocation and that the question inherent in any self-defense claim is whether the provocation reasonably justified the insured's actions.9 Ultimately, the Court determined that sufficient evidence was present in the record to support the special referee's determination that the insured only intended to protect himself and not to inflict a specific injury on the claimant.10
However, the Court of Appeals of South Carolina also addressed this exclusion in S.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Dawsey11 The language of the exclusion was different, and the...
