Hanover Insurance v. Talhouni

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• excluding coverage for “bodily injury or property damage . . . which is expected or intended by the insured”
• “[E]vidence of vol untary intoxication is relevant to determining the presence or absence of intent with reference to an exclusion clause”
• “The focus . . . is whether the insured ‘intended’ the injury, not whether the insured ‘intended’ the act.”
• “The focus in these cases is whether the insured ‘intended’ the injury, not whether the insured ‘intended’ the act.”
• “the insurer must show the applicability of the clause excluding coverage .... ”
• insurer must show that insured intended the injuries that resulted from his conduct; court declined to adopt different rule where capacity question arose from voluntary intoxication

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).