Otterman v. Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co

In Otterman v. Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 130 Vt. 636, 642, 298 A.2d 547, 551 (1972), "occurrence" was defined in the policy under consideration as "an accident . . . which results . . . in bodily injury . . . neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured." 130 Vt. at 637, 298 A.2d at 548. The facts in Otterman showed that the insured had no intention to cause the injury claimed when he fired a gun into a darkened building, though his act of firing the gun was intentional. The facts demonstrated that the result of the insured's shot was not expected, as he did not know the victim was even in the building. The Court held, therefore, that the injury resulted from an "occurrence," it being neither expected nor intended by the insured, and there was coverage under the policy. Id. at 642, 298 A.2d at 551.