United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Elitzky

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the expected or intended clause is ambiguous as a matter of law and must be construed against the insurer
• explaining that “it is essential to distinguish intent from recklessness”
• rejecting objective standard based on concern that “an exclusion of injuries the insured ‘should have anticipated’ might exclude from coverage, not only intentional injuries but also those caused by negligence”
• stating standard in terms of desires and knowledge of insured and specifically rejecting objective standard by stating “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable even if the insured should reasonably have foreseen the injury which his actions caused”
• “An insured intends an injury if he desired to cause the consequences of his act or if he acted knowing that such consequences were substantially certain to result.”
• “Courts must construe ambiguous clauses in favor of the insured but at the same time insurance companies should not be forced to insure against harm deliberately brought about by the insured.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).