In Cumberland Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Beeby, 327 N.J. Super. 394, 743 A.2d 853 (App.Div.2000), the Court considered the applicability of insurance coverage where plaintiff brought an injury claim in a civil action against her long-term paramour on alternative theories of negligent and intentional conduct. It was unclear whether the underlying incident constituted an act of domestic violence. The Court determined that the resolution of that issue would control the coverage issue. The Court stated: However, we need not explore the limits of defining "wilful harm or knowing endangerment" policy exclusion language because the narrow issue presented here is whether defendant's conduct, once judicially reviewed, rises to the level of being an act of domestic violence. We hold that whatever definition of wilful harm or knowing endangerment is applied, if there is a finding of domestic violence, the holding of Merrimack and the exclusionary provision of the policy will be satisfied. To find otherwise would reinstate the concept of intent in a domestic violence context, a position that we have previously rejected in both Merrimack and Tevis v. Tevis, 155 N.J. Super. 273, 382 A.2d 697 (App.Div.1978), rev'd on other grounds, 79 N.J. 422, 400 A.2d 1189 (1979). Id at 403, 743 A.2d 853.