In Interinsurance Exchange v. Flores (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 661, Sanders was the driver of an insured automobile in which Perez was the passenger with a gun. The two agreed to drive into Santa Barbara to seek retribution against Flores for an earlier assault on Sanders. As Sanders drove by, Perez intentionally shot at Flores, who was standing on the street, injuring him. (Flores, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 667.) The automobile policy at issue contained a provision similar to the State Farm policy here, in which an occurrence was defined to mean an accident. (Id. at p. 669.) Flores discussed cases in which the insured engaged in reckless conduct that caused a covered injury: leaving a loaded hair trigger weapon on one's lap while driving over a bumpy road, flipping eggs out of a car at 40 miles per hour, and drunk driving. (Id. at pp. 669-670, citing Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Partridge (1973) 10 Cal.3d 94, 101 109; National American Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 565 140 Cal. Rptr. 828.) Those cases, Flores noted, "all constitute 'accidents' within the meaning of personal injury insurance policies because the injuries are not intended or expected." (Flores, supra, at p. 671.) Flores held, unlike the three cases above cited, that the shooting was not an accident because all of the conduct was planned and "Sanders therefore intended and expected injury to result from his acts." (Ibid.)