Frankenmuth Mutual Ins Co v. Masters

In Frankenmuth Mutual Ins Co v. Masters, 460 Mich 105, 114; 595 NW2d 832 (1999), the Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that whether an event is an accident must "be framed from the standpoint of the insured, not the injured party." Masters, supra, 460 Mich at 114. The Masters Court noted that an act need not be purely unintentional to be an "accident," and observed that there can be a problem in determining when an intentional act can be said to result in an accident. Id. at 115. The correct test, the Masters Court ruled, is whether the consequences of the insured's intentional act "either were intended by the insured or reasonably should have been expected because of the direct risk of harm intentionally created by the insured's actions. When an insured acts intending to cause property damage or personal injury, liability coverage should be denied, irrespective of whether the resulting injury is different from the injury intended. Similarly, . . . when an insured's intentional actions create a direct risk of harm, there can be no liability coverage for any resulting damage or injury, despite the lack of an actual intent to damage or injure." Id. at 115-116.