In Pekin Insurance Co. v. Miller, 367 Ill. App. 3d 263, 267, 854 N.E.2d 693, 305 Ill. Dec. 101 (2006), the underlying complaint claimed that the insured cleared trees from the wrong lots, and the insurer contended that the insured acted intentionally in cutting down trees, even if it was the wrong trees. Pekin, 367 Ill. App. 3d at 265-66. The reviewing court rejected the insurer's argument and found that there was no evidence that the insured intended the result of removing trees from the wrong property. Pekin, 367 Ill. App. 3d at 266. "It is immaterial that the underlying complaint alleges intentional torts. It is the 'property damage' that must be ' " 'neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.'" ' " Pekin, 367 Ill. App. 3d at 266.