In Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Coppola, 299 N.J.Super. 219, 690 A.2d 1059 (App.Div.1997), the Court specifically addressed the issue as to "whether a defendant husband's subjective intent with respect to the consequences of his alleged abusive behavior toward his wife was relevant in determining if coverage existed under his homeowner's policy that excluded indemnity for injuries expected or intended." Merrimack, supra, 299 N.J.Super. at 221, 690 A.2d 1059. The wife alleged at the divorce trial "a litany of physical and emotionally abusive behavior" continuing for a period of twenty-five years and necessitating at least two restraining orders, the last order being entered in 1990, which granted in-house restraints and forbid harassing and violent activities between defendant husband and his wife. Defendant admitted that the conduct described by his wife amounted to domestic abuse. The Court noted: It is clear from the recitation of the proofs offered by Jo Ann in the divorce trial that she was asserting acts of intentional misconduct, as opposed to negligence, as grounds for her Tevis 79 N.J. 422, 400 A.2d 1189 (1979) claim. The Court found that "spousal abuse is so reprehensible that both public policy and logic require a presumption that the actor intended injury." Merrimack, 299 N.J.Super. at 229, 690 A.2d 1059; In finding that insurance coverage for intentional acts of domestic violence was not available to defendant, "we concluded that spousal abuse in any form is 'so inherently injurious, that it can never be an accident,' and therefore, 'as a matter of public policy and logic . . . the better rule warrants application of the objective approach,' to the end that the intent to injure is presumed from the performance of the act." Id. at 230, 690 A.2d 1059.